Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Redundancy

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Labour what definition governs the administrative practice in his Department for a termination of employment on the grounds of redundancy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): A distinction between termination of employment on grounds of redundancy and termination on other grounds is not required for purposes of paying unemployment benefit and the question of a definition does not arise for the purposes of administration.
Firms with redundancy or severance pay schemes usually define the circumstances in which severance pay will be given. Generally this is when a worker is discharged because the employer decides that the work he has been doing is no longer required and where there is no immediate prospect of his being reengaged.

Sir Richard Glyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Would he agree that it is most desirable that there should be a firm definition of redundancy which would be understood both within his Department and generally outside? Will he take steps to make the definition that he has now given more widely known?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the definition I gave was merely related to the normal practice of firms which have severance pay schemes. The question of the definition of redundancy in a wider sense is now one of the

complicated matters which is being considered. I shall certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Apprenticeship Periods

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been achieved in securing agreement between employers and unions for the reduction of apprenticeship periods; which trades have accepted reductions; and what hopes there are for early agreement in other trades.

Mr. Whitelaw: The building industry at national level in England and Wales has accepted a four-year apprenticeship and four regions are now operating it. The hotel and catering industry and the retail meat trade have also shortened their apprenticeship. The engineering, heating and ventilating and electrical contracting industries and the building industry in Scotland are also considering a shortening of apprenticeship. But the delay is most disappointing. My right hon. Friend hopes that employers and national unions throughout industry will urgently consider the relevance of their apprenticeship periods to modern conditions and training methods

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that if this country is to increase its skill, as it is vital that it should do, and there is to be a transfer of people from one skill to another, it is absolutely vital that this problem should be dealt with right across the unions and that more of them should reduce their periods of apprenticeship very quickly in order that this can be done?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to appreciate that it is very dangerous to generalise or to be dogmatic in this matter. We would all agree that the important thing is that the period of apprenticeship should be realistic in relation to the time that it takes to produce a trained worker in present circumstances.

Mr. Prentice: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the generalisations of which his hon. Friend may have been guilty was his reference to the need of changes throughout the unions? We are talking here about one of many aspects if apprenticeships are to


be brought up to date. We would all like to see the conservative attitude on both sides of industry brought up to date in ibis respect.

Mr. Whitelaw: I would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to what I said in my original Answer, which was that my right hon. Friend hopes that employers and national unions throughout industry will urgently consider the relevance of their apprenticeship periods. It is a matter for all concerned.

REDUCTIONS IN NORMAL WEEKLY HOURS OF WORK AGREED SINCE 1ST JANUARY, 1962


Industry


Change in Hours
Operative Date of Reduction


Pot Still Malt Distilling—Scotland
…
…
44–42
October, 1962 


Harris Tweed Manufacture (mill workers in spinning section)—Outer Hebrides
…
…
45–43
February, 1962


Hosiery Manufacture—Scotland
…
…
43½–42½
March, 1962


Boot and Shoe Manufacture—Rossendale Valley 
…
…
43¾–42½
April, 1962


Roofing Felt Manufacture—Great Britain
…
…
43–42
July, 1962


Screen Printing and Display Production—Great Britain
…
…
42–41
January, 1963


41–40
January, 1964


Exhibition Stand Construction, etc.—Great Britain
…
…
42–40
March, 1963


Exhibition Electrical Industry
…
…
42–40
March, 1963 


Paper Making, Paper Coating, etc. (day workers only)—United Kingdom
…
…
43–42
March, 1962


Animal Gat Trade—England and Wales
…
…
42½–42
April, 1963


Drawing Office Materials Manufacture—Great Britain
…
…
42–42
January, 1962


Building Industry—Scotland
…
…
42–40
November, 1963


Plumbing Trade—Scotland
…
…
42–40
October, 1962 


Electrical Contracting Industry—England and Wales and Northern Ireland 
…
…
42–40
September, 1964


Heating, Ventilating and Domestic Engineering (Installation and Maintenance)—Great Britain
…
…
42–40
February, 1965


Painting Trade—Scotland
…
…
42–40
November, 1963


Dock Labour—Great Britain
…
…
44–42
August, 1962


Dock Labour (British Transport Commission)
…
…
44–42
April, 1962


Cold Storage—Great Britain
…
…
44–42
September, 1962


Buffer Food Depots—England and Wales
…
…
46–44
July, 1962


44–42
March, 1963


Retail Pharmacy (pharmacists only)—England and Wales 
…
…
46–44
March, 1963


Retail Saddlery and Leather Goods Trade—Great Britain 
…
…
45–43
March, 1962 


Coal and Coke Distribution—Great Britain excluding London Region 
…
…
44–42
January, 1962


Cine-Film Production (Technical and general grades in film laboratories)—Great Britain 
…
…
42½–41
December, 1962


41–40
December, 1963


Cine-Film Production (Clerical workers)—Great Britain 
…
…
38½–37½
December, 1962 


Catering—British Transport Hotel and Catering (Restaurant Car and Depot Staff
…
…
44–42
January, 1962

Acton

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Labour the number of wholly unemployed registered at Acton Employment Exchange at the latest date for which figures are available; and the totals in each preceding month of 1963.

Mr. Whitelaw: Three hundred and eighty-nine at 13th May, 1963, compared with 451 in April, 474 in March, 508 in February and 529 in January.

Hours of Work

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour how many trades and professions have negotiated reductions in hours of working since 1st January, 1962; which they are; and what were the hours of working before and after such reductions.

Mr. Whitelaw: As the reply consists of a tabular statement. I will, with per-mission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Mr. Holland: Would not my hon. Friend agree that these figures show a reassuring trend for the people of Acton? Could he give me a basis of comparison between the employment situation in this area and the national average?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the national figure. In April, the percentage in the Greater London area was 1·5 compared


with the national average of 2·7. The Greater London area percentage fell to 1·3 on 13th May.

Remploy Factory, Dalmuir

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to increase the capacity of the Remploy factory at Dalmuir, Dunbartonshire, to accept more disabled persons.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Dalmuir factory is being moved into larger premises at Anniesland in the autumn. This will enable Remploy to introduce a new trade and thereby employ more disabled people.

Mr. Bence: I thank the hon. Member for the letter that he has sent to me. In that letter he states that within the next 18 months another 30 places will be provided. Is he satisfied that the provision of 30 places in 18 months in sufficient to cope with the increasing number of disabled people coming on to the employment exchange in the area?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that this is just one of the Remploy factories in the area, and that an extension on these lines is at least a help toward solving what is a difficult problem.

Mr. Lawson: Can the Minister tell us whether there are to be similar extensions in, for example, the factory at Motherwell? His words seemed to suggest that there is to be an all-round extension. Is that the case?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry if my words suggested that. That is wrong. I said that there was to be an extension in one factory in this area, and that there were other Remploy factories in the area. Remploy is always reviewing its trading position in particular areas. The extension at Dalmuir is welcome. I merely referred to the fact that there were other Remploy factories in the area.

Shipbuilding and Ship-Repairing Workers, Clyde

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour what reduction has taken place in the number of men employed in shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries on the Clyde since 1957; and what steps he is taking to place these men in alternative employment.

Mr. Whitelaw: The number of males employed in shipbuilding and ship-repairing on the Clyde declined by 8,300 between mid-1957 and mid-1962, the latest date for which figures are available. Our local officers are continuing their efforts to place unemployed shipyard workers by submitting them to suitable vacancies.

Mr. Bence: I am shocked at those figures—no less than 8,000 jobs lost in six years in the Clyde Valley. Will the hon. Gentleman do something drastic quickly, because many of these men will leave Scotland? It may be that many already have left. The fewer the number of skilled men we have as a result, the more difficult it will be to bring new industries to the area.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can assure the hon. Member that it is not our desire that these men should leave Scotland. That is why my right hon. Friend has announced stepping up our retraining facilities. Anything that can be done to persuade men to take these retraining courses will be extremely valuable.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House who take an interest in shipping and shipbuilding matters are profoundly disturbed about the competitive position of the British shipbuilding industry? In discussions with his other colleagues in the Government, can the Minister give an undertaking that some form of inquiry will be conducted into the competitive ability of the British shipbuilding industry at present?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking that goes any wider than the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I can only remind him that a working party, representing both sides of the industry, is meeting under a senior official of the Ministry for the purpose of discussing ways of improving labour relations in the industry. I have no doubt that both sides can help in that working party.

Mr. Bence: I am amazed at the statement that because we have lost 8,000 skilled men we shall have training centres to train some more men for jobs that are disappearing. This seems nonsensical.

Mr. Whitelaw: I did not suggest that. I suggested—and I am sure that I will


carry the hon. Member with me in this —that if we are to keep these men in Scotland they will need to be retrained in the new skills necessary for the industries we hope to attract to Scotland. These industries will require skilled labour.

Shotts and Wishaw

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were registered at the Shotts and Wishaw employment exchanges in April, 1962, and April, 1963; and what percentages of insured workers these figures represent.

Mr. Whitelaw: In Shotts there were 350, or 5·3 per cent. unemployed in April, 1962, compared with 663 or 10 per cent. last month. In Wishaw there were 1,183 unemployed in April, 1962, compared with 1,534 last month. A percentage rate is not available for Wishaw, but the rate for the North Lanarkshire travel to-work group of which it is part was 6·2 per cent. in April, 1962, and 8·2 per cent. last month.

Miss Herbison: Does not the Minister agree that these figures show that the heavy unemployment in these areas is not a seasonal matter, but that there is something basically wrong? What does he propose to do to ensure that these many decent men and women will find work soon?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree that the problems in the area are not of a seasonal nature, and I also agree that this is a matter of concern to us all. The hon. Lady knows the measures which the Government have taken and are taking, both before and during the Budget, to improve the position. I would point out further that the value of the two advance factories at Shotts and one each at Bathgate and Airdrie are part of the Government measures which have particular relevance to this area. It takes time for these measures to take effect, but as they do so I am sure that they will prove to be the right method of tackling this problem.

Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are continually being told about these travel-to-work areas? Is he also aware that from Airdrie only 17 have found employment with B.M.C., and from Shotts and the villages surrounding it only 14 have been employed there

up to date? We do not want talk about the Budget; we want real evidence that work is coming to this area.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can only tell the hon. Lady that we trust that the measures we have taken will soon give her that evidence.

Airdrie and Coatbridge

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were registered at the Airdrie and Coatbridge employment exchanges in April, 1962, and April, 1963; and what percentage of insured workers these figures represent.

Mr. Whitelaw: There were 1,135 unemployed at Airdrie and 1,770 at Coat-bridge in April, 1962, compared with 1,543 and 2,159 respectively in the same month this year. Both these areas are in the North Lanarkshire travel-to-work group, in which the rate of unemployment in April, 1962, was 6·2 per cent. compared with 8·2 per cent. last month.

Miss Herbison: Do not these figures once again show the serious nature of unemployment in this area? The Minister speaks of the travel-to-work radius, but has he ever considered where the jobs are going, and also that if they are outside the area covered by the employment exchange there is little chance of the people getting work? In conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade, will the hon. Gentleman try to find work —something which the Government have been unable to do, as a result of their policies, for the 12 years they have been ruling this country?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot accept that we have been unable to find work for 12 years.

Mr. Willis: The Government have had 12 years.

Mr. Whitelaw: As I said before, what we are doing now will, I hope, give mounting evidence of the success of the Government's policy.

Meat Trade (Young Persons)

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the continuing unemployment amongst school leavers, what consultations have taken place between


his officers, national or local, and representatives of the retail meat trade, with a view to the employment of young persons in that trade.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Youth Employment Service has regular contacts with the trade at many levels. Careers literature about the trade has been issued by the Central Youth Employment Executive to schools and to youth employment officers, who have regard to oportunities in the trade when advising and placing young people. Our officers also act as assessors to the National Joint Apprenticeship Council and to regional apprenticeship committees. The development of training opportunities in the trade is of great importance in making the career attractive to young people.

Mr. Royle: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the meat trade is anxious to train many more of these young people? Will he draw the attention of his officers to the fact that there are some excellent training and apprenticeship schemes in the trade? If I send him a booklet on the subject, will he see that it is drawn to the attention of his officers?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with what the hon. Members says. I have here a very attractive booklet. I do not know whether it is the same as that which the hon. Member has offered to send me.

Mr. Royle: It is.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can assure the hon. Member that this descriptive literature, giving details of training opportunities, has been circulated by the Central Youth Employment Executive to youth employment officers and schools. Anything further that we can do in this field we certainly will do.

Lost Working Days (Strikes and Unemployment)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour the number of working days lost in the year ended 31st March, 1963, due to strikes, both official and unofficial, and the number lost due to unemployment for the same period.

Mr. Whitelaw: The number of working days lost in Great Britain through strikes

in the year ended 31st March, 1963, was 1,900,000. The number of man-days of unemployment in the same period was about 140 million.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he and those hon. Members who sit on the benches behind him are so concerned about the relatively small number of days lost due to industrial disputes and appear to be unconcerned about the very large number of days lost through unemployment? [HON. MEMBERS:"Nonsense"] Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, instead of putting Motions on the Order Paper which are critical of trade unions, his hon. Friends might begin to be more critical of the Government about the way in which this very big problem has been dealt with?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should have thought that neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would wish in any way to be complacent about either of these reasons for losing productive resources.

Railway Workers, St. Helens

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour the number of railway workers registered as unemployed, at the latest convenient date, at the St. Helens Employment Exchange.

Mr. Whitelaw: Twelve on 13th May. These may include persons last employed by private manufacturers of rolling stock and equipment.

Mr. Spriggs: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what effect the closures of railway workshops and the Beeching Plan for closures in the St. Helens area will have on the figures which he has just given?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is far too early to give any forecasts of that sort. I would hope that the effect would not be very great.

Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries, Clyde Valley

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Labour the number of mouldmakers employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister of Labour the number of millwrights


employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. J. Bennett: asked the Minister of Labour the number of engine fitters employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of fitters employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of turners employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour the number of universal grinders employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour the number of patternmakers employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour the number of millers employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Steele: asked the Minister of Labour the number of moulders employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Whitelaw: In February, 1957, there were 1,082 fitters and 185 turners employed in shipbuilding and ship-repairing compared with 780 fitters and 100 turners in February, 1963, in the areas covered by the Glasgow, Paisley, Greenock and Dumbarton groups of employment exchanges. Information is not available about other occupations in shipbuilding or ship-repairing or about the numbers employed in different occupations in the engineering industry.

Mr. Small: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that these Questions relate to highly-skilled workers in a craft

section of industry and that the decline in their numbers is really staggering? Has he any proposal designed to arrest that decline? Will he make an effort to see that we retain men skilled in these crafts, as retraining does not enable a high earning capacity to be attained.

Mr. Whitelaw: Bringing new industries to an area and retraining skilled labour to man those industries is part of the Government's policy.

Mr. Millan: Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary improve on his statistics a little? It is disturbing that the figures are not available. Is he aware that there is considerable concern about reductions in the traditional skills on the Clyde and corresponding reductions in apprenticeship facilities, and that there exists a need to look urgently at the apprenticeship schemes generally, to improve training schemes and to do all else that is necessary to give young people opportunities on leaving school?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. My right hon. Friend has recently arranged for information about the important occupations in a sample of firms in the manufacturing industries only to be collected. These would not he available on a local basis such as Clydeside.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept the decline as being inevitable or has he any positive proposal to arrest it?

Mr. Whitelaw: The positive proposal to arrest this decline must be the introduction into the area of new and expanding industries to take the place of the older traditional industries which are bound to decline somewhat.

Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the decline in the number of skilled people employed in the west of Scotland is due to migration to England or because they have found employment in other industries and occupations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I could not give an exact answer to that question without notice. I should imagine, however, that it is due to a variety of reasons.

Mr. Lawson: Does the Minister agree that the loss of or the reduction in the


number of skilled workers in this important part of the country is a matter of first importance not only to Scotland but to Britain? Does he consider that perhaps the fact that this country lags behind other countries in the building of ships may be explained in terms of this kind of loss, and will he see that he and his right hon. Friends do more than they have done over the past 12 years to meet this growing difficulty?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be a mistake for me, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, to generalise and to specify that we are not as competitive in the shipbuilding industry as we would wish to be. At the same time, we have to accept that this is part of a problem which exists throughout the world. I do not think that it is confined to Clydeside or anywhere else. I accept that the loss of skilled people is worrying for any area, and that is why the Government are determined to do so much to get new firms and industries into the area.

Mr. Ross: But surely the Government have not started to bring these new industries to the area this week? Surely the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given show a drop of at least 30 per cent. in respect of those trades about which he has given figures? Are not the Government concerned about this, and the fact that those areas and these industries, the engineering and shipbuilding industries, are what the prosperity of the Clyde was built upon? Have not the Government a coherent policy to arrest the decline, or support the prosperity of that area with new industry to employ these skilled trades?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should have thought that the Government have a far more coherent policy for dealing with this problem than has been suggested by anyone else.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how the Government's retraining policy is determined when they do not appear to have information about the types of industry in which jobs are declining? Surely it is important to obtain this information if the Government are to tackle the problem?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be fair to say that we have a considerable amount

of information, certainly sufficient upon which to base sound training proposals.

Mr. P. Williams: Does the earlier answer by my hon. Friend mean that the Government accept as inevitable a decline in the shipbuilding industry, whether on the Clyde or elsewhere? If this is so, surely it is worth while trying to find the reason. Is it—as has been suggested by the placing within the last 24 hours of an order with a Japanese yard—because of cost, or it is because of the absence of credit facilities? The House ought to have an answer on these matters.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that anything in my answer could be read any wider than merely stating what is already happening in this industry. The subjects to which my hon. Friend referred are wider, and they are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Callaghan: May I advert to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary that it was not for him to give reasons why the shipbuilding industry was less competitive than it should be? Does the hon. Gentleman know that in fact the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde is as competitive as anywhere in the world and that the modernisation which has taken place in some of the shipyards there will stand comparison with that in any other yard, and does not he think that he should modify his statement?

Mr. Whitelaw: What I was saying referred to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. South (Mr. P. Williams). I certainly agree with the hon. Member about modernisation and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity of saying so. The fact is, however, that orders are being placed in other parts of the world, and that is something we have to face.

Training Centres, Glasgow Area

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Minister of Labour what he estimates will be the annual output of retrained and rehabilitated people from his existing and proposed retraining centres in the Glasgow area; and what is the estimated number requiring retraining in the same area.

Mr. Whitelaw: I estimate the annual output from Government Training Centres will be about 1,000; the annual output from the Industrial Rehabilitation Unit: is about 870. It is not possible to estimate the number requiring retraining but the training programme has been geared to the expected redundancies and to supplying the needs of expanding industry in Scotland.

Mr. Carmichael: From the figures given in reply to previous Questions, would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the number of places required for retraining is much greater than 1,800 a year? Is he aware that I understand that frequently people are trained to do jobs such as welding, although there is a surplus of welders on the Clyde? Does not he think that a complete reappraisal of the training scheme policy, particularly in the old industrial areas, is urgenly required?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that in our retraining programme we are taking those matters into account.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been decided at the Royal Ordnance Factory at Bishopston to reduce the intake of apprentices in 1963 from 12 to 6, and how does he reconcile that with his statement?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has referred me to a particular instance. We must extend Government training facilities. Of course, one would hope that industries which are brought to Scotland will also extend their training facilities.

Labourers, Glasgow (Classification)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Minister of Labour how his Department in the Glasgow area arrives at the classifications, light labourer, and heavy labourer; and what procedure is available to allow someone classified as the former to be reclassified as the latter.

Mr. Whitelaw: A heavy labourer is one who can do heavy work such as shovelling or stacking heavy materials; a light labourer is one who cannot do such heavy work. Anyone registering at an employment exchange may ask to be reclassified.

Mr. Carmichael: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that frequently people are classified in the employment exchange on the basis of the last job they did and not of their record over a period? People find great difficulty in getting reclassified in the Glasgow area. The officers of his Department tend to take the lowest possible wage for light labourers prevailing in the area. This classification can mean anything from 10s. to £1 for an individual who is on National Assistance and affected by the wage stop. Will the Department look into this matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think I can assure the hon. Member that our local officers do this classification in the light of their local knowledge and experience. An applicant's classification is reviewed after each spell of employment and also periodically, with the object of improving his prospects of getting work. This is one of the main objects of classification.

Miss Herbison: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that in areas of high unemployment it is an advantage to a man to be classified as a heavy rather than a light labourer, even if he is not able to do the job? A miner in my constituency who was earning £22 10s. a week was classified as a light labourer and the wage was set at £7 10s. a week. It is because of such cases of hardship that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) is concerned.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this to my attention and I shall see that it is brought to the attention of our officers.

Wages

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases wages fall below what is paid in unemployment benefit and National Assistance allowances; what information he has from his wages inspectors of the number of firms paying lower wages rates than the above benefits and allowances; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitelaw: One hundred and thirty-five industrial agreements and wages regulation orders fix a basic rate for some workers below the average level


of unemployment benefit and National Assistance allowances appropriate to an unemployed man with a wife and two children dependent on him. At least 97 per cent. of men engaged in manual work, however, are estimated to earn more than this. Information on the number of firms concerned is not available.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to issue instructions to Ministry of Labour officers throughout the country not to submit unemployed workers for jobs where the wages offered are below subsistence standards according to the National Assistance levels? Will he make a very careful study of this matter and report back to the House on the number of firms actually paying starvation wages?

Mr. Whitelaw: Without wishing to endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall certainly note his point about what our local officers do in offering particular jobs.

North-East Scotland

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Labour how many men have had to leave the north-east coast of Scotland in the last 10 years in order to find employment elsewhere; how many of them were tradesmen; and what record is still retained of their respective skills.

Mr. Whitelaw: I regret that the information requested cannot be furnished from the Ministry's records. A special analysis at the employment exchanges at Banff, Buckle, Fraserburgh and Peterhead shows that since January, 1962, 599 men were placed away from home, 323 of whom were skilled tradesmen. In all cases registration documents are retained for a period of at least five years.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of these men would return to the area if they had an opportunity to work there, and that their skill and training would provide an invaluable basis for whatever industries wished to establish themselves in the area? Therefore, is it not possible to keep some record of what would be available should industry expand again in that part of the country?

Mr. Whitelaw: As I think my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the

President of the Board of Trade is doing all he can to encourage industries to go into this development district. I note the other points he has made.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Minister any record of the particular trades and industries in the City of Aberdeen affected by this terrible exodus? Will he consult with the relevant Ministers, particularly the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with a view to asking them to redeem their promises to stop this terrible exodus?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that I have not the particular figures with me at present. However, I note what he has said.

Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the President of the Board of Trade why in the first three months of this year more industrial development certificates were issued for the Midlands than for the whole of Scotland? How does he hope to begin to solve the problem while that is still going on?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will no doubt note what the hon. Member has said.

Furniture Industry

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Labour the total number unemployed at the latest available date for over six weeks and the total number on short-time in the furniture industry expressed as percentages of the total employed in the industry nationally and in Wycombe. respectively.

Mr. Whitelaw: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. The estimated number of operatives in the industry working short-time in March was 6,800 or 9·4 per cent. of the total number of operatives employed. Figures on a precisely comparable basis are not available for High Wycombe, but 220 or 2·5 per cent. of the employees in that area are believed to be on short time.

Mr. Hall: While welcoming the improvement in the short-time working in the industry shown by that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend why it is not


possible to give the figures asked for in the first part of the Question? Surely an analysis of the figures would not involve any statistical problem, and they would be most helpful.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but figures of the duration of unemployment are available only in respect of the total number unemployed and they are not available for individual industries.

Cumnock

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour the unemployment figures at Cumnock Employment Exchange on 15th May; haw they compare with the figures of last year; and how he proposes to bring about a reduction in those figures.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 13th May, the day of the count, there were 1,167 unemployed, compared with 422 a year ago. Our local officers are already doing all they can to place these workers in employment.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there would have been a much larger number of unemployed if men had not been sent to England and their families split up and if others did not have to travel long distances by bus, adding considerably to their working day? Does he realise that it is now six months since the Barony Colliery disaster and we are still waiting for a decision when the pit will reopen and about a power station? What can the hon. Gentleman do about that?

Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Member will appreciate, these figures have been largely influenced by the closure of the Barony Colliery. I understand that the National Coal Board is confident that it will be able to re-absorb nearly all these men within daily travelling distance within the next few months.

29. Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Labour what records he maintains of men who have had to leave the north-east of Scotland in the last 10 years to find work elsewhere, who would be willing to return provided suitable employment could be obtained near their old homes.

Mr. Whitelaw: Records of this kind are maintained only in connection with

the Resettlement Transfer Scheme, under which a man may exercise an option to return home as soon as suitable work becomes available for him. In the last two years, only two men have expressed such a preference.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the first reaction to the prospect of additional employment in the north-east of Scotland is the application of hundreds of men who have had to leave the area to return to work there? Is it not, therefore, of the greatest value to prospective employers of labour in the area that they should have some record easily available of the skills and the training which would return to it provided these men could get work there?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly look into the point made by my hon. Friend.

Skilled Labour Requirements (Study)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour how many officers of his Department are engaged in the study designed to estimate the demand for skilled labour in five years' time; when he expects them to complete this task; what steps he will then take to make their findings known; whether this is the first operation of its kind carried on by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitelaw: A small research unit has recently been set up in the Ministry to study future needs for skilled manpower. The study of manpower statistics and information has long been a normal function of the Ministry and the work of the unit, which will be concerned particularly with the skilled engineering and building trades, is designed to supplement this. At present the number of staff employed full-time is two but many others will also be involved as required. Some results should be available next year and my right hon. Friend will consider the question of publication in due course.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not clear from the recent Report of the National Economic Development Council that what is badly needed is a manpower budget going some years ahead in terms of skilled manpower? Was it not equally


clear from the hon. Gentleman's reply just now to my hon. Friends from Scotland that there is great confusion on Clydeside and elsewhere about the relationship of training programmes to needs? Will a unit of two people really cope with this problem? Should not the Ministry have many more people working on it and doing so with a great sense of urgency?

Mr. Whitelaw: I made clear in my original Answer that the number of staff employed full time was two but that many others will also be involved in this research. I quite agree with the hon. Member that the importance of this work is considerable. If necessary, and as it develops, the number of staff will be increased.

Wages Council Inspectorate

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour the present strength of the Wages Council Inspectorate; what percentage of establishments covered by Wages Councils was inspected in 1962; what percentage of those inspected was found to be falling below the statutory standards of wages or conditions; and whether he will increase the establishment of this Inspectorate so as to provide greater protection for the workers concerned.

Mr. Whitelaw: There are at present 144 inspectors who are engaged full time on visiting employers' premises. In 1962, 9·3 per cent. of the total number of establishments known to be covered by Wages Regulation Orders were visited by inspectors. The percentage of these establishments where some underpayment was discovered was 17·5 per cent. My right hon. Friend does not propose to increase the establishment of the Inspectorate.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not rather scandalous that, of the establishments that were inspected, 17·5 per cent. were paying below Wages Council rates, the Wages Council rates themselves being among the lowest in the country? Does not this tie up with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply just now to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) about the number of people who are earning less than National Assistance levels? Surely, there should be more inspectors to see that these bad em-

ployers are brought into line on these very low minimum rates of pay.

Mr. Whitelaw: One would certainly agree with the hon. Member that it is most unsatisfactory if any workers are paid less than the wage to which they are legally entitled. At the same time, although there has been a small reduction in the number of inspectors, I am assured that they do every bit as much inspection and that they achieve it by improved methods of working. This is, I am sure. what everybody would wish.

Mr. Prentice: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a minority of employers are so bad that they will cheat in this respect unless they are inspected frequently? Is it not clear that the existing establishment of inspectors cannot inspect frequently? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again from this point of view?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly note what the hon. Member has said, but I have no evidence that extra inspection is needed.

Commonwealth Immigrants (Vouchers)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for employment vouchers he has received under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act; how many he has issued; how many have lapsed; and how many successful applicants have taken advantage of such vouchers.

Mr. Whitelaw: Up to 17th May, 122,185 applications had been received and 40,250 vouchers had been issued. Vouchers totalling 3,968 had been returned to the Ministry because their validity had expired or because the holders no longer required them. Up to the end of April, 10,147 Commonwealth citizens had used their vouchers to enter the country.

Mr. Pannell: In view of the continuing high level of unemployment and the fact that according to figures supplied by my hon. Friend, another 30,000 immigrants can enter the country within the next few months against vouchers already issued, does he not consider that the issue of vouchers should be suspended until


the position improves? Is it not deplorable that so many vouchers should be issued to immigrants to enter the country to the detriment of British nationals who are seeking work?

Mr. Whitelaw: Over the past few months, arrivals of voucher holders have been only a few hundred a week. There is no evidence that this rate is likely to be stepped up. I should also point out that the figure of 26,371 unemployed, which I gave to my hon. Friend in a Written Answer on 20th May, was 4,380 below the figure for April and some 11,000 below the figure for July, 1962, when the control began.

Remploy Factories, Scotland

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to secure the establishment of additional Remploy factories in Scotland to provide employment for the disabled.

Mr. Whitelaw: In order to employ more severely disabled people in Scotland, the Remploy factories at Aberdeen and Dundee have recently been extended, the factory at Cowdenbeath will be extended shortly and the one at Dalmuir will be moved into new premises.

Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome these additional facilities but that if he examines the figures which he gave to other Scottish Members and myself three or four weeks ago about the number of disabled persons in Scotland, he will see that there is still clearly a need for several more Remploy factories in Scotland?

Mr. Whitelaw: What one must do in considering, this matter—and I appreciate what the hon. Member says—is to remember that Remploy is dealing with the severely disabled only and that some of the figures which were given apply to the disabled generally. One must also appreciate the problem of siting the Remploy factories in the areas where improvement is required. In some of the scattered areas, there are unemployed severely disabled people whom it would be impossible to cover by Remploy factories We feel that the number of factories in Scotland is coping with the prospective demand.

Mr. Stodart: Does my hon. Friend recall that in a letter which he wrote to me last August, he made clear that the Remploy factory in Glasgow was working at 100 per cent. capacity? Does not this show that there is need and room for an extension of the factory in the Glasgow area?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should assure my hon. Friend that in reply to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) I referred to the extension of the factory at Dalmuir on its going into new premises at Anniesland, which is in the Glasgow area. I note, however, what my hon. Friend has said and also what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said.

Mr. Millan: Does not the Minister realise that there are no fewer that 2,400 registered disabled unemployed in Glasgow and that what is needed is an extension of facilities not merely for the severely disabled, but also for the less severely disabled, who in some cases also find it impossible to get jobs?

Mr. Whitelaw: I take the point made by the hon. Member. In this regard, it would be right to refer to the sheltered workshops which are provided by the local authorities and the voluntary bodies. I was fortunate enough to go to open one of these in Falkirk and I think that an extension of them is extremely valuable.

Young People, Fife

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the number of young people totally unemployed in Fife county increased from 370 in mid May, 1962, to 625 in May, 1963; and to what extent the measures he proposes will arrest the deterioration.

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir. But the final figure for May is 610. Much of the county is scheduled as a development district and young persons, like older workers, should benefit from the recent measures taken to assist these areas. The Youth Employment Service will continue to do all it can to find suitable jobs for unemployed young people.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that we are sick and tired of hearing what the Government are going to do? Is he aware that they have been going


to do things for 12 years but that virtually nothing has happened? Would it not be a good idea if Members of the Treasury Bench were paid by results?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not seek to comment on that last point. I would, however, say to the hon. Member that I am not stating what the Government are going to do or what will happen. Both to the hon. Member and to many of his hon. Friends this afternoon, I have been stating what the Government have done and the results that will be achieved thereby.

Disabled Persons, West Midland Region

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour the average proportionate unemployment among disabled persons in the West Midland region; how this compares with the proportion unemployed in Newcastle-under-Lyme; and what steps he is taking to deal with the problem.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 8th April, 1963, 7·4 per cent. of registered disabled persons were unemployed in the Midlands Region compared with 11·9 per cent. in New castle-under-Lyme. The disablement resettlement officers will continue their efforts to find work for the disabled persons who are unemployed. The position is expected to improve with the general employment situation.

Mr. Swingler: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise from that, as in Scotland, in many parts of England the situation is extremely serious, especially where more than 10 per cent. of registered disabled persons are unable to find work? Does he appreciate the special tragedy of many of these men from the pits, and so on, who year after year are unable to find any suitable work? Will he now take urgent steps to provide suitable work in these areas where there is such a high level of disabled unemployed?

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly accept the problem which the inability to find jobs creates for disabled persons, and I share the hon. Member's concern in that. As to Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Midlands Region, however, I would hope that this position, too, will improve with the general improvement of the economic situation.

Dr. King: Will the Minister seriously consider the setting up of a committee to examine how far we are meeting our obligations to the severely disabled, on the one hand, in institutions like Remploy and the partially disabled, on the other hand, when we are asking employers to take a certain percentage of such disabled men? This is a serious problem demanding serious consideration on the part of the Minister. Will he assure us that he will look into it?

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly assure the hon. Member that I will look into it, as, indeed, my right hon. Friend and our Department are constantly doing. We recognise that this is a serious and urgent problem.

EGYPT

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether there has been any change in the volume and character of Egyptian propaganda and subversion against British territories and interests in the Middle East and Africa since the announcement of the extension of the United Arabic Republic to Syria and Iraq and the President of the Board of Trade's visit to Cairo; whether he will defer further direct British aid to Egypt until a more peaceful atmosphere prevails; and whether Her Majesty's Government will seek means, if possible in co-operation with the United Kingdom's co-signatories of the Tripartite Declaration, to give effect to the purposes of that Declaration, and otherwise clarify and stabilise the position.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): There has been no noticeable change in the volume or character of Egyptian propaganda about British territories and interests in the Middle East and Africa in the period mentioned. I have no present evidence of attempts at direct subversion.
The credit made available in August, 1962, is now almost wholly committed. No fresh credit is under consideration at present.
As to the third part of the Question, I can add nothing to the reply my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 8th April and to that which my right


hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) on 14th May.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why was British aid offered to the United Arab Republic at the very time that Cairo radio was howling for the death of King Hussein? While the statements made by President Kennedy, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal are welcome as far as they go, does my hon. Friend think that the position of the Western Powers is sufficiently clear to deter aggression against friendly States in the Middle East, which could bring on general war?

Mr. Godber: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would say that this loan was arranged largely to assist British exports, and my hon. Friend should not ignore the implications there. On the second part, I am quite confident that the States concerned are fully aware of the considerations involved.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister of State unaware of the prime objective of President Nasser, which is to gain complete control over the whole of the Arab countries—which he may well do in the course of a year or so—and that when he has done that he may begin to blackmail this country and interfere with British interests?

Mr. Godber: I am aware of all the implications in this area, but I am also aware of the fact that it is dangerous to predict what is likely to happen in the Middle East.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply on the question of the Tripartite Declaration was rather ambiguous? Does he recall the assurances given by the Lord Privy Seal some weeks ago in the House to the effect that he would seriously consider the concept of extending the United Nations presence around the frontiers of Israel and Jordan? What has been done about that?

Mr. Godber: My reply on this matter was a direct reference to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said in relation to the Tripartite Declaration, and I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister of State see if anything can be done to persuade the United States to put a little pressure on President Nasser to see that the financial aid which the Americans have been giving to Egypt is not spent on buying Russian arms and indulging in propaganda which is disturbing to peace?

Mr. Godber: I should like to look at that point, although I am not aware that it has been so used.

YEMEN

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the most recent information he has received from the United Nations Organisation, following its mission to that country, about the withdrawal of foreign forces from Yemen, and about Egyptian air bombardment of civilian targets.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): On 29th April the Secretary-General reported progress to the Security Council; I have arranged for copies of this report to be placed in the Library of the House. He has sent an officer to make arrangements with the countries concerned for the establishment of observer groups to supervise disengagement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my hon. Friend any idea when the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Yemen is likely to be complete? Has there been any international protest from the United Nations or from individual member States of the United Nations against the cruel and wanton bombardment of the civilian population by Egyptian aircraft?

Mr. Thomas: Regarding the first part of that supplementary question, T am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend any idea as to time. The Secretary General has not yet fixed a date and the observers are not yet in place. On the second part, I do not think that this would help the Secretary-General's efforts at the moment.

Sir G. Nicholson: I think that my hon. Friend used the word "supervise". Is he aware that that word may be variously interpreted? Did my hon. Friend mean that there is some power in the hands


of the observers, or are they merely observers pure and simple with a watching brief?

Mr. Thomas: They will be observers on the spot in order to see that disengagement has taken place, and to report.

ABERDEEN TRAWLER"MILWOOD"(DETENTION)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the Aberdeen trawler"Milwood"is detained in Reykjavik by Icelandic authorities without any court order, notwithstanding guarantees offered by her owners; and what steps he is taking to protect British interests there and in particular to support the trawler owners' offer of guarantees.

Mr. P. Thomas: I understand that the trawler "Milwood" is detained upon a ruling by the judge of the Icelandic court which is conducting an inquiry into the incident, pending the conclusion of the inquiry or until otherwise decided. Until the inquiry is finished, I do not think that it would be in the owners' interests for me to make any public comment or to initiate any action at this stage.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the order of the court was made after the capture of this trawler in mid-ocean, that the rule of law should be observed and that the presence or absence of Mr. Smith in Reykjavik is quite a different matter from the detention of this trawler—a money-making concern—which is losing large sums of money for the owners? Would it not be right for the Government to accede to the request of the owners of the trawler to back the guarantee which the owners gave in Reykjavik for its release? Surely the Government should back that and let the trawler be released. It has nothing to do with the presence or absence of Mr. Smith.

Mr. Thomas: Regarding the hon. and learned Member's comments on the rule of law. I am sure that he will agree that I cannot comment on the legal procedures of another country. I am advised, however, that there is nothing in international law to preclude the detention of the trawler pending the completion of the inquiry. As to the absence of Skipper Smith, I agree that this is a different matter, but the hon. and learned Member

will understand that although we have no power, and would not wish to have any power, to compel Mr. Smith to stand trial in Iceland, it is our hope that he will do so; and that may well resolve this difficult matter.

Mr. Hoy: Have the British Government been invited to take part in an inquiry? If so, will the Foreign Office be officially represented?

Mr. Thomas: Our representatives are in continuous touch with the Icelandic Government over this matter.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MULTILATERALNUCLEAR FORCE)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal what instructions have been given to the United Kingdom representative on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council of Ministers which is to consider the United States new proposals for the reorganisation of European defence.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord Privy Seal the present policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the participation of the German Federal Republic in a multilateral nuclear force of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Godber: These Questions presumably refer to the American proposal for the creation of a mixed-manned force of surface ships carrying the Polaris missile. We have given a general welcome to the concept of such a force. No decisions are expected at Ottawa on the proposals for the creation of this force. The Federal Government of Germany, like other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, would, of course, be fully entitled to participate in any multilateral force which may be set up in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not that Answer indicate that the Government have changed their policy in regard to a European organisation for defence and that they have succumbed or are about to succumb to the blandishments of the United States? If that is the policy, it will be sternly resisted by many hon.


Members and, I believe, by many people in this country. Can we have an assurance that before the Government definitely decide to accept the United States' proposal for a mixed force, the House of Commons will be consulted?

Mr. Godber: There is no change of policy at all. This is exactly in accord with the arrangements laid down in the Nassau communiqué. This is a development from it, proposed by the United States. As I have said, there are no commitments in regard to it. This is a matter which is subject to discussion at the present time and, of course, the House will be informed of any developments when they take place.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister of State not aware that a great deal of public feeling exists in this country against the West Germans having access to nuclear arms in any way? Will he bear this in mind? How does this affect the attempts that were being made at one stage for a nuclear-free zone in Europe?

Mr. Godher: If such a force were set up it would be a multilateral one and would be multilaterally controlled. It would not be a question of the Germans having sole possession of these weapons.

Sir J. Maitland: Does giving a welcome mean that we are committed to taking part in this operation if it comes about?

Mr. Godber: I said that we have given a welcome to the concept of such a force. Obviously, all the aspects of such a force must be discussed. This has not yet been brought to any question of finality. I have merely said that we have accepted it and have welcomed it in principle.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable disquiet about the attitude of the Government towards this matter? Can he say whether, in his view, these proposals make any sense at all from the military point of view? Does he further realise that there are grave dangers in anything that tends to the spreading of nuclear weapons? May I repeat the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) that before any film decisions are

taken we will have an opportunity of debating the matter in the House?

Mr. Godber: I suggest that questions on the military aspect should be put to the Minister of Defence. On the question of proliferation, in my view this would have exactly the reverse effect. It would tend to prevent proliferation into fresh national hands, and I think that that is a very important aspect of the whole problem.

Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever the political advantages of this idea, it makes military nonsense, and will be very expensive?

Mr. Godber: I have just said that questions on the military side should be addressed to the Minister of Defence. I should prefer to confine myself to the political aspects which, for the reasons I have just given, I think are certainly very important.

Mr. Grimond: What do the Government mean by saying that they give a welcome to the concept? Does this mean that they give a welcome to the force, or not? Secondly, what do they mean by saying that this follows out the Nassau Agreement? Does this mean that we are prepared to give up the British independent deterrent in favour of some European multilateral deterrent, or not? Who is to control this force? Is it to be controlled by some European authority, or by the Americans?

Mr. Godber: I said that we gave a welcome to the concept— I should have thought that was plain English; that we have accepted the principle of the idea. It depends entirely on how the idea is worked out. As I have indicated, it has not been worked out. The whole question in relation to the Nassau Agreement is quite clear, in that we there committed our V-bomber force, or undertook to commit it, and to provide, subsequently, Polaris submarines. But there was also definite provision in Articles 8 and 9 of the Nassau communiqué for the provision of a multilateral force. This falls entirely within that concept, and it is for that reason I referred to the communiqué.

Mr. Grimond: Who is to control it?

Mr. Godber: I have indicated that if such a force is to be set up the question


of control must be worked out in N.A.T.O. itself, but it has not yet been worked out.

Sir G. Nabarro: In any event, can the Nassau proposals now be tenable, as France has contracted out and refuses to have anything at all to do with a mixed force armed with Polaris missiles?

Mr. Godber: The Nassau proposals were Anglo-American proposals. It is quite clear that they are certainly tenable, and will remain so.

Mr. Healey: Is it not deplorable that Her Majesty's Government should have been prepared to welcome this proposal in principle without having a view on whether or not it is militarily practicable? Secondly, on the political question, is it not the case that under this proposal Western Germany will assume a nuclear role at least five years before she could have hoped to have done so by any other means? Is it not also the case that the West German Government have accepted the proposal only on the understanding that once such a force becomes operational, the unanimity rule will be superseded by some sort of majority rule for control?

Mr. Godber: On the question of accepting the principle without consideration of military effectiveness, I did not say that. I said that questions of military concern should be addressed to the Minister of Defence. With regard to control, it is not true that any definite decisions have been taken by the Germans or anyone else. This is an American proposal that has been put before N.A.T.O., and it is subject to consideration at the present time. No decisions have been

taken in relation to it. I have expressed the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government to it, and I think that that is where the general position rests.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of a Government decision to have a debate on the subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

BILL PRESENTED

LAW REFORM (SUCCESSION ETC.) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to assimilate and amend the law of Scotland with respect to the succession to the heritable and moveable property of deceased parsons; to amend the law relating to the legal rights exigible out of such property and to the administration of deceased persons' estates and other property passing on death; to provide for adopted persons to be treated for certain purposes as children of their adopters; to make new provision as to the financial rights and obligations of the parties to a marriage on divorce in Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Noble; supported by Lady Tweeds muir; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock,—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

SUPPLY

19TH ALLOTTED DAY

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1963–64

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £70, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the following services connected with Agriculture, namely:—

Civil. ESTIMATES. 1963–64



£


Class V, Vote 1, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
10


Class V, Vote 2. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland 
10


Class V, Vote 3, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) 
10


Class V, Vote 4, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
10


Class V, Vote 5, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
10


Class V, Vote 6, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
10


Class V. Vote 7, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services)
10


Total
£70

AGRICULTURE

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Pearl (Workington): On a point of order, Sir William. I was under the impression that the Minister of Agriculture was to make a statement to the Committee. I understand that it will be part of his speech, but we are informed today that the right hon. Gentleman did, in fact, make the statement to a meeting of the Conservative Party last night at the House. This is an unusual procedure, and it is also rather embarrassing. There has been a leak—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) probably has a different conception of standard in this House from mine. I hope so.

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help the Committee by telling me what the point of order is

Mr. Peart: May I ask the Minister Whether he will make the statement now, so that the House may be informet?

The Chairman: that is not a point of order. It is for hon. Members to make their speeches. I cannot tell them what to say.

Lieut.- Colonel Sir Walter Bromley- Davenport: On a point of order that is not a point of order, sir William—

The Chairman: Order. If it is not a point of order, it is not for me to deal with.

3.37 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): The problems facing agriculture in the developed Western world were nowhere better illustrated than at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade meeting in Geneva which ended last night. As never before in the G.A.T.T., the willingness of many countries to see tariffs on industrial goods throughout the developed world reduced was tempered by, and even made conditional upon, progress in improving the state of trade in temperate agricultural products.
Thanks to the scientific revolution in agriculture which has led to spectacular increases in productivity, output in agriculture in the developed world has tended to outstrip the level of commercial demand for food. Faced with this situation, the traditional exporting countries have found it increasingly difficult to dispose of their production at remunerative prices.
The result has been plain to see—growing surpluses, depressed prices, unstable marketing conditions. Different countries have felt the effect of this in different ways, but all of them have found it difficult to secure for their agricultural industries a proper share in the general improvement in living standards. They have responded to it in different ways. There has been increased protection against foreign competition, but, at the same time, agricultural exporters have been increasing their pressure on world markets. There


have been many attempts to control production, and even to take both land and people out of agriculture.
Here, at home, agriculture has been protected to some extent inasmuch as returns have been kept up by the deficiency payments system. But it has been apparent for some time now, and certainly to me ever since I have been Minister of Agriculture, that we could not hope to insulate ourselves completely from this general malaise. This we have seen most strikingly in the depressed state of our market for major commodities—so much so that our efforts to implement the spirit of the Agriculutre Acts as regards fair returns to farmers have resulted in a rise in the estimates of Exchequer cost of agricultural support of more than one-third, or over £100 million, in the last three years.
This has been the cause of growing concern to Government, taxpayer and farmer alike. Our overseas suppliers have also been concerned at their falling returns on our market, often brought about by the competition of dumped or subsidised supplies. It has been plain for some time that these difficulties were likely to increase rather than to diminish. I should like to remind the Committee of what I said in a debate two years ago, on 12th June, 1961, on the subject of dumping:
…;we have seen a significant stepping up of this offloading, both in terms of the number of commodities and the number of countries involved. Of course, if this is only a passing phase, we should be able to control it. But is it? Are there not signs that in the years ahead world food surpluses are likely to increase yet more? If so, are not the pressures and strains on our free market likely to grow rather than diminish?
It is true that behind our support system we have the 1957 anti-dumping legislation, but that legislation was designed to deal with specific incidents and it was not designed to give blanket protection against falling world prices. And it is not man enough for that. This trend is creating major difficulties for us and we must deal with them in the short term as best we can with the measures which are open to us. If it looks like becoming a permanent feature, so that wide ranges of foodstuffs come on to our free market at uneconomic prices, we will have seriously to consider adapting our system in order to prevent our objective from being thwarted. Otherwise, we will find our farmers constantly at the mercy of imports at uneconomic prices, with Exchequer payments rising to unpredictable

heights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1961; Val. 642, c. 57–8.]
And so, indeed, it has turned out to be.
We then, in July, 1961, went into the Common Market negotiations. In the meantime, during the eighteen months that these negotiations lasted, pressures on our market and, therefore, on our system continued. This was the background to the Price Review this year, which began only a matter of days after the Common Market negotiations had broken down.
Therefore, while it was clear that we would need to make some changes in our system, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House of Commons so in the post-Brussels debate, the extent to which we could use the Price Review for this was, naturally, limited because of the time factor. But those which we did make in certain of the guarantee arrangements were to my mind more important than the adjustments of the actual guaranteed prices, in which overall we made no net change, from the point of view of Review arithmetic, in the value of the guarantees.
We have related the guarantee for eggs to an indicator price representing the price which the Marketing Board can reasonably be expected to secure when normal supply and demand are in balance. While this in itself should lead to greater stability in the egg market, we have made provision for the guarantee payments to be adjusted if imports rise above a certain level and the market is depressed.
For pigs, we greatly improved the effectiveness of the flexible guarantee arrangements and we also made a start on withdrawing the special stabilising arrangements which have been a somewhat artificial element in the balance of supplies between the pork and bacon markets. We have shown that we are making our own contribution to more orderly marketing in the pig industry and we shall be looking to our overseas suppliers to play their part. This we are discussing with Denmark and other suppliers.
We also gave notice in the Review that we shall be considering changes in the method of calculating the guarantee payments for fatstock, that is to say, the


weekly calculations and the seasonal scale. What we have in mind here is the need for producers to pay more attention to the level of market prices through the year and to refrain from unloading supplies on a weak market because of the attraction of subsidy as opposed to the attraction of the market.
The most important of the commodities where we did make changes in the guaranteed price was milk. This is the commodity that has caused more difficulties in successive Reviews over the years than any other. We have been living with a spiral of rising milk production resulting in a higher proportion being sold at unprofitable prices for manufacture and the pool price paid to producers thereby being reduced. Encouragement to increase production would merely have aggravated this spiral. However, there was evidence this year that the rise in production more nearly matched the rise in sales on the liquid market, and, therefore, we felt able to increase the guaranteed price by ½d. a gallon.
This, along with the increase in the standard quantity, has meant an extra £6 million for the dairy industry. We looked at the increase in the guaranteed price very carefully, but I was convinced that to have given any bigger increase would have been to run a grave risk of setting off again the spiral of higher production and lower average returns. A greater increase might have had immediate attractions, but it certainly would not have been in the long-term interests of the dairy industry.
While the Review as a whole was disagreed and some individual price determinations, notably for milk, were included in that disagreement, I believe that what underlines the anxiety felt in the industry is the growing awareness of the new situation brought about by the altered supply and demand pattern which has changed a seller's market into a buyer's market, coupled with a feeling of impotence in having to sit back and see imports coming in without restriction and total supplies of home and imported foods pulling down farm-gate prices and thus forcing up the subsidy bill. These combine to put at risk our whole system of support. It is this which, fundamentally, is causing anxiety over the future, and it is with the future that I should like to deal.
In the White Paper following the Review we said that changes were needed in our system and we gave notice of our intention to discuss proposals to this end with leaders of the industry and with our overseas suppliers. I should like to tell the Committee about the broad approach on which the Government have decided. We adhere to our system of support through guaranteed prices and deficiency payments and intend to adapt it to present circumstances by bringing about greater market stability. This is desirable in the interests of the farming community and to avoid inflation of the cost of agricultural support by sudden and unpredictable falls in market prices.
There are two factors in this problem. The first is the market price which determines the rate of subsidy. This can be undermined from time to time by imports coming in at unduly low prices. Secondly, for cereals and meat there is no limit to the quantity of home production on which the subsidy is paid. We have concentrated our first attention on fatstock and cereals, and for good reason. The estimates that I have put in this year for the total cost of support for agriculture were, in round figures, £360 million. Of this, £120 million were for direct farming grants we can always predict what they are to cost and they are firmly in the control of the Government, to be altered as necessary from one year to another. Of the remaining £240 million, £210 million represented the cost of support for cereals and meat, leaving only £30 million to cover all the other major commodities.
Indeed, the rise in our estimates of £100 million in the last three years is all accounted for by cereals and meat. Moreover, in these sectors the prospect is one of increasing total supplies in our market, and measures to prevent our market prices from being undermined are necessary not only in our own interests, but also in those of our overseas suppliers.
The Government, therefore, intend to secure greater stability in the market for cereals and fatstock by a system of control of imports or import prices, combined with the extension at home of the standard quantity concept into these commodities. As the Committee will know, the standard quantity is an accepted principle under the Agriculture Acts,


which authorise the guarantee to be related to such part of our production as it is in the national interest to produce at home. It already applies in one way or another to milk, pigs, eggs, sugar beet and potatoes.
It will take some time to settle the precise application of this policy both on the home side and on imports, and the measures to be introduced may well be different in detail for the different commodities. We shall, of course, be discussing this with the leaders of the agricultural industry, and these discussions will include consideration of other changes in the machinery of our guarantee arrangements, as we foreshadowed in the Review White Paper. We shall also have discussions with the trade organisations principally concerned.
I hope that the Committee will appreciate that at this point I cannot go into any great detail, but I should like to give an indication of the extent of the changes we have in mind and how our broad approach will affect the consumer, the food trades, farmers and our overseas suppliers. First, the consumer. Let me say at once that we do not intend to restrict supplies in order to raise market prices. We should start from broadly the present level of supplies. We are not aiming to raise prices, but to iron out the more violent fluctuations in the market. In other words, we are aiming to put a floor or a bottom into the market.
I believe that this approach will win a broad measure of support in the Committee, apart, perhaps, from the Liberal Party, who, as I understand, would like to see us reject our system and go over to a full-blooded managed market system. It follows, also, that there will be no significant interference with the operations of the food trades beyond what may be necessary to ensure that there is a floor in the market. The Government's aim is certainly to leave the maximum freedom to the trade, consistent with their objective of ensuring that there is a stable market.
For the producer there will, I believe, be many advantages in this new approach. Farmers have disliked seeing the rising Exchequer bill at least as much as any other section of the community. Their record of improvements in efficiency and

productivity stands high in comparison with other industries. Productivity per man has been increasing by 5 per cent. per annum. Yet this tends to be obscured by the fact that the Exchequer support bill has also been rising so fast, due to weak market prices calling for a higher deficiency payment on each unit of production.
I grant that there have been occasions when the home farmer, either because of the quantity produced of a particular commodity or the way in which our system as it now is leaves him to market it, has been a partial or even a main contributor to this, but the fact that we are the only big commercial free importer of food in the world has meant that time and again our market has been undermined for reasons over which our agricultural industry has no control whatsoever.
We have seen barley down to £14 a ton—a totally unrealistic price for any country to be able to deliver it here economically. Equally, during the last few months, as in 1961, we have seen the price of fat cattle in our markets forced down to 110s. a cwt. On the other hand, during the calendar year 1962 the average return from our markets for fat cattle was 142s. a cwt. compared with a guaranteed price of 167s. This was a year when there happened to be, perhaps more by good luck than by good management, a satisfactory and steady supply of beef from all sources throughout the year, and, consequently, a stable market. What we want to see is this sort of pattern being the rule rather than the exception.
1 believe that the incentive to improve marketing of home produce, which must be an important feature of our system, has been seriously weakened by the knowledge that, no matter what is done for home production, it could be thwarted or brought to nought by the importation of supplies from abroad at low prices. The action that we have in mind to prevent imports of cereals and meat disrupting the market and the improvements in the guarantee arrangements at home will, we believe, provide a new stimulus to improving our marketing machinery. In that connection, we hope to have in the autumn the report of Sir Reginald Verdon Smith's committee on fatstock marketing and its advice on how this vital part of our marketing system should be reformed.
Though the farmers, to say nothing of the taxpayers, will be relieved to have a greater measure of stability in market prices, they will be the first to appreciate that, as a great trading nation, it must be in our national interest to decide these arrangements with the concurrence of our Commonwealth and other overseas suppliers to whom we have our obligations under various international agreements. In reaching agreement with them on measures which they should take to contribute to the stabilising of our market, we must be prepared to make our own contribution to that same end. That is why, on the home front, we will be introducing standard quantities and the other changes that I have mentioned in our deficiency payments system.
In the preliminary discussions that we have had recently with some of our overseas suppliers, in the E.F.T.A. meetings, with the Commonwealth Trade Ministers and in the G.A.T.T., we have found a good deal of understanding for our general thesis that if they are to obtain a reasonable return from our market there must be some control over the conditions under which it is supplied.
Often in the past, different countries have complained to us of the low prices that they are getting on our market, but they cannot expect, in times of surplus. to have both limitless access in terms of quantity and, at the same time, to be sure of getting a reasonable price. With the entry to all other world markets restricted, it is not possible to keep our market completely open and free in times of surplus without having violent falls in prices from time to time. Surely, therefore, it is in their interest, every bit as much as in ours, to secure more orderly marketing arrangements.
The detailed arrangements for the different commodities which we would aim to agree with our overseas suppliers might well need to include a body to keep under review the level of supplies and also the phasing of those supplies in our markets in the light of changes in the pattern here and overseas and other factors, such as the opening up of new markets. But whether or not a body of this kind will be necessary, and, if so, what form it should take, will depend on the arrangements we finally make. We are keeping an open mind

about it. It would be unwise to decide on the machinery before we can see clearly what its task would be.
In working out the proper balance between home-grown and imported food we should, as I have said, start from broadly the present level of supplies. We want arrangements which will ensure fair access to our market at reasonable prices, both to the overseas supplier and to our home producer. We do not wish them to be rigid, but to be as flexible as can be consonant with their fulfilling their purpose. This will be particularly necessary where the control would be on a quantitative basis. Where it would be better for the control to be exercised on the price of imports, our approach would be to establish minimum import prices to prevent the market falling to unreasonably low levels, leaving the market to run normally above the minimum price level.
The best method in each case can be discussed, but we hope and believe that, on such a basis, we will be able to reach agreement with our trading partners and that they will recognise that arrangements of this kind are likely to be more satisfactory than the prospect of unbridled competition in an overloaded market. At the same time, the fact that greater stability in our market will benefit our overseas suppliers means that this may be at some cost to our import bill. We shall expect these benefits to be taken into account in the overall balance of concessions which will he struck in the forthcoming trade negotiations.
What of the opportunities for growth? Both our standard of living and our population are rising. The forecast is a population of 70 million people by the end of the century. This will mean a rising demand for food and a growing market which will offer opportunities both to the home producer and to exporting countries. It is obviously not possible to be precise over proportions. Plainly, they will vary in the event from one commodity to another, and many factors will play upon them, not the least being the competitive position of our home producers in relation to overseas suppliers. But I have no doubt that, in the discussions we will he having, our overseas suppliers will appreciate that we could not agree upon arrangements which would not provide full opportunities to


our farmers to secure a proper share of the growth of demand on our own market.
In the longer term, much will, I believe, turn on the successful conclusion of international commodity arrangements. At last week's meeting of the Commonwealth Trade Ministers and, even more recently, of the G.A.T.T., we have affirmed our policy of support for such long-term solutions. I want to remind the Committee of the policy of the Government towards this. It was set out in a declaration made after the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in September last year. Their statement declared their desire
…;to maintain and expand world trade in commodities and to improve the organisation of the world market in a manner fair alike to producers and to consumers.
The statement went on:
They will support a fresh and vigorous approach to the negotiation of international commodity agreements to this end. In any such approach principles of price, production and trade access would need to be applied on a commodity by commodity basis so as to encourage maximum consumption without over-stimulating production and to offer to efficient producing countries adequate access and stable prices at a fair and reasonable level.
They believe that in the disposal of any surplus agricultural products opportunity should be taken to the fullest extent compatible with the legitimate interests of traditional suppliers to meet the needs of those peoples of the world who are in want.
This was said, of course, in the context of our negotiations with the Common Market. But, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech in the post-Brussels debate on 11th February, the failure of the negotiations with the E.E.C. in no way relieved us of the need to fit our agricultural policies into our overseas trading arrangements, although he was at pains to underline the need for adequate reciprocity in any arrangements we made so as to safeguard our balance of payments position. We have since reaffirmed our intention to co-operate with the Commonwealth in dealing with the various world agreements which can be of such benefit to the economies of the less developed countries.
We shall be pursuing our objectives in the working groups for meat and cereals which will meet shortly under the

G.A.T.T.—indeed, arrangements were made early today for an early meeting—arid also, where appropriate, we will be having discussions on a bilateral basis. We will do all we can to reach agreements which we believe will be advantageous to both parties. The Committee will realise that world-wide commodity agreements in the full sense of the word cannot be arrived at quickly or easily, and it will be the Government's intention to use the G.A.T.T. forum to discuss what has to be done in the short-term to bring about the stability we seek.
I have given the Committee an account of where we have got to in the development of our policy. It may be summed up by saying that our intention is, while adhering to the principles of the 1947 and 1957 Acts, to adapt and to tailor out existing system of support to the new conditions of today. Though our attention has so far been concentrated, for good and obvious reasons, on fatstock and cereals, we believe that this new policy will have great advantages for agriculture as a whole, for small farmers as well as large, because it will serve to preserve our system of support—to which the whole industry attaches so much importance—by removing the pressures and strains which at present are weighing on it and putting it at risk.
We cannot judge today how long the process of discussion with our overseas suppliers will take. But I believe that it will be a satisfaction and a relief to the industry to know that this is the policy which the Government have decided upon, that our system of support will be assured and that it will provide a solid base for future opportunity.
We believe that it is a responsible policy in world terms. It will provide sound assurances for British agriculture, with opportunity for growth, and also the maintenance of trade with our traditional suppliers on a basis which is mutually advantageous.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington): I refer again to what I said when I raised a point of order at the beginning of this debate. We are having the debate because the Opposition chose a Supply day for it and normally, in courtesy, we allow the Government spokesman to make a statement first, if necessary. I


still believe it to be discourteous to this Committee for the Minister to have made his statement last night to a private meeting upstairs. The Times has revealed this today.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: It was inaccurate.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has a habit of shouting from a seated position. If he wishes to interrupt, let him do so honourably, and I will give way.
The Times has given a full account and I should like to place it on record that we object to this sort of treatment.

Sir G. Nabarro: The account in The Times is grossly inaccurate. A full and frank exchange of views took place between my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the back benches.

Mr. Cyril Bence: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Sir G. Nabarro: Because I was there. That is how I know. That was a perfectly honourable course; there was nothing dishonourable about it. My right hon. Friend made no statement in advance of his speech today and I think that he has behaved with the greatest decorum. as he normally does.

Mr. Peart: I still assert that it would have been better if he had made his statement in the House of Commons first rather than to a private meeting of the Tory Party. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) should not be so naïve. The Minister made precisely the same speech today as he made last night to a private meeting.
We take the view that the Government must bear some responsibility for the indecision and uncertainty which have hung over agriculture for a long time The Minister said that his speech would end the uncertainty, but it is our case that hon. Members opposite must bear major responsibility for it. The Minister has been converted. He chided the spokesman of the Liberal Party about the Liberal Party's belief in the managed market, but over the last two years the Minister himself has lauded the virtues of the managed market over and over again and has constantly advised hon. Members and the farming community to accept the common agricultural policy

of the European Economic Community. The right hon. Gentleman has argued strongly and vigorously that the managed market was necessary, so it is not for him to chide the Liberal Party.
We must realise that, because of pressure of events, the Government have had to jettison the policy which they have pursued and appreciate that there must be planning not only of home production, but of the phasing of our imports to home production. We must now recognise that hon. Members opposite have thrown overboard their old doctrine which was once annunciated by a Conservative Prime Minister when dealing with agricultural policy when he argued that we should reject the planning concept of the first post-war Labour Government and return to the doctrine of the law of supply and demand.
At long last, after pressure of events and after a series of prodding debates which we have initiated from time to time, the Government are now admitting that there must be planning and coordination of imports. Hon. Members opposite who disagree with that must know that throughout our debates on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure this year and throughout our discussions of many Orders and in our debates on horticulture and the implications of the European Economic Community, Labour spokesmen have constantly pressed the need for essential planning and for the co-ordination of home production and the supply of imports.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: rose—

Mr. Peart: I will give way in a moment. Hon. Members should have the courtesy to allow one to develop one's case before asking one to give way. I certainly will later.
Over and over again we have argued this need. The Government have now endorsed the policy contained in the Agriculture Act, 1947, which was put through the House by my noble Friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, who was then the Labour Minister of Agriculture, the policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets. That policy, and the policy of the Agriculture Act, 1957, which did not alter the main concept of the 1947 Act, are not now to be thrown overboard,


as was likely only a few months ago—the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will agree with me about that. There was a danger that the Minister would lead agriculture into having to accept the policy of a managed market and the implications of the main principles of the Common Market agricultural policy. The 1947 and 1957 Acts would have been thrown overboard. Some hon. Members opposite know very well that they have argued this case.
It is a change for the Minister now to endorse these main principles. I agree that the 1947 and 1957 Acts are not sacrosanct and that we must adapt them, their principles, implications and administrative effects to the present situation. We endorse the main principle of policy which has now been accepted by the Minister and put forward by him today, but hon. Members opposite must still bear some responsibility for our present situation. We must now dramatically change our approach to meet the new situation.

Sir H. Harrison: Would the hon. Member agree that there have been many Supply days on which the Opposition could have initiated a debate on agriculture, but that it was not until I gave notice of a Motion, which is to be debated next week, on the need for greater control of imports that the Opposition suddenly decided to have a debate?

Mr. Peart: The hon. and gallant Member is being rather naive. We have chosen to have this debate because we believe that it is right and proper that at this stage, which may well be our last Parliamentary debate on agriculture this year, we should examine Government policy critically. The Opposition took the initiative, and also we shall participate in the debate next week.
Let us quickly examine why the responsibility for present events rests with the Government and consider the history of policy over the last ten years. In debate after debate on agriculture we have pressed the Government about their uncertainty. In 1958, we had a major pig production crisis when the Government's stop-start policy caused uncertainty in the industry. It happened later with meat imports. Time

and again producers have asked the Government to do something.
I have with me a report of a speech by the president of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Harold Woolley, which he made at Caernarvon in March this year. [Interruption.] Harold Woolley is a very responsible farm leader and I am rather surprised that a Conservative Member should jeer when his name is mentioned.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: rose—

Mr. Peart: I will not give way.

Mr. Kershaw: rose—

Mr. Peart: No.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): If an hon. Member does not give way, the hon. Member who rises must resume his seat.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. Is it not in the tradition of the House that if an hon. Member mentions another hon. Member in a pejorative sense he will have the ordinary courtesy to give way?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. It is for the hon. Member concerned to decide how he will proceed.

Mr. Peart: I cannot—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Peart: I will not give way.

Mr. Percy Browne: Monstrous.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Gross misrepresentation.

Mr. Peart: I cannot understand why hon. Members are so touchy. If it is their intention to try to upset the debate, I remind them that we can do the same.
I quote from what was said by the president of the National Farmers' Union, and I hope that hon. Members will accept it:
The Union has made repeated and urgent representations to the Government to bring some sense into this situation and to adopt a sensible policy of co-ordinating imports with home production. In the first three


months of this year imports from the Argentine are running at double the rate for the same period last year. Our market prices are 25 per cent. below what they were in 1961 and 20 per cent. less than in 1962. Could any industry plan its business operations properly (n a chaotic situation of this kind? Let me emphasise that when the subsidy bill for all this is presented, it must be made clear that the responsibility for the increase lies clearly and unmistakably with the Government.
Repeatedly, the farming community has protested at the policies pursued by the Government.
Meat imports are no isolated example. In our major debate on the subject when the Minister presented a Supplementary Estimate to the tune of £78 million, in February, 1962, we argued that the Government would have to change their policy and bring in new arrangements. The deficiency payments system within a free market cannot operate, and this is precisely what the Minister has reaffirmed now.

Mr. P. Browne: It has worked.

Mr. Peart: But we are not having a free market. We are really seeking to change the system which is in operation. We are seeking, virtually, to have a managed market and also co-ordination and planning of our production in relation to import policy and planning as a whole. In no sense is this a free market.
We have often argued that the Exchequer support system which is now in operation, and has reached the level mentioned by the Minister —he quoted the very considerable figures in his own White Paper —would inevitably place a strain on the industry and on the Exchequer while, at the same time, bringing no real benefit to the producer and the consumer. We argued this when we censured the Minister for his miscalculation of February last year.
All that we have said has come true. We are seeing now the end of an era. The Government have had to respond to events and to prodding from this side of the Committee. [Laughter.] Hon. Members know that that is true. Otherwise, why come to the House with a change of policy? Why reject the traditional policy pursued hitherto by the Minister?
The Minister had adopted a new approach now, under the pressure of events. Throughout the last two years

he believed that the solution to our agricultural problems was to be found elsewhere. He believed in the managed market of the European Economic Community. He was an enthusiastic defender, in no sense a negotiator. I respected his views and understood them, but I found it rather strange because, when the Labour Government were operating the 1947 Act, the then Minister of Agriculture was chided by hon. Members opposite for planning, for"farming from Whitehall"; yet, ironically, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have"farmed from Brussels."The main policy decisions would have been taken elsewhere, and the principal measures which gave our farming community security under the 1947 and 1957 Acts would have been jettisoned.
We have sought to impress on the Government that, with the collapse of the Common Market negotiations, there should be a new approach and an attempt to assert a new policy which would be in the interests not only of the producers, but of consumers. Today, the Minister has sketched the broad principles of his policy. I trust that, in the working out of the details, all sections of the industry will be consulted. So far, the right hon. Gentleman has consulted only the National Farmers' Union. Has he made arrangements to consult the workers' side? Have the meat retailers been consulted? They are an important section, and they have felt that the Minister treated them rather brusquely eighteen months ago. It is only right that this section of the retail trade should have a voice in the shaping of policy.
The Minister must consult all sections as he proceeds, because, in the end, however much we may declare principles in the House of Commons, as the Minister has done today, everything will depend upon the Government's earnestness in working out proper and sensible arrangements for administration. We still do not know what is in the Government's mind. The Minister has said that he will consult the industry and that today we can discuss only general principles. I accept this, but, in the end, his policy will be judged by the details of any machinery which he creates to administer his policy. This is vital in marketing, as the Committee knows.
We have a difficult problem. The question is: how do we balance all the


interests affected by events? Quite rightly, the Minister must, first, consider the farmers and farm workers. Whatever policy emerges, we must think in terms of fair remuneration for our agricultural producers and workers. As yet, the wages of agricultural workers still lag behind those in industry generally. We still have to get to a situation where the skilled worker in agriculture has a wage comparable with that of the skilled industrial worker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), who represents the National Farmers' Union—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—who represents the National Union of Agricultural Workers; in a sense. he represents both, having a farming constituency, although he specialises in organising the agricultural workers—will have an opportunity to deploy this argument later.

Mr. P. Browne: I entirely agree about farm workers' wages, but will the hon. Gentleman elaborate a little and say how he suggests that these wages could rise if, at the same time, he is as keen as I am—I believe that he is—on the welfare of the smaller farmer who finds it very difficult to pay high wages?

Mr. Pearl: The farm workers' wage is inevitably linked with the prosperity of the industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, wages are a matter for negotiation. There is a wages board. [Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) is being such a silly fool today. This is how matters proceed. I should like to see the industry getting a bigger and better return and having more security so that the farm worker may have his standard of life raised by wage increases.
We have argued this before. I think that these questions should be properly negotiated through the wages board. It is a problem affecting farming not only in this country, but in most countries of Western Europe. I read only today how West Germany's farm leaders have pressed the Chancellor-designate. Professor Erhard, to do precisely this in Western Germany, where the problems of agriculture are somewhat similar to ours.
While one of our objectives is to give security to the farmer and farm worker,

as we provided in the 1947 Act, we must bear in mind the needs of the consumer. Consumers' interests will have to be balanced with the producers' interests. I have always taken the view that there should be no conflict between the two and that a healthy, prosperous agriculture which gives fair remuneration to the farmer and farm worker is essential to our national economy. The consumer will not benefit if our home agriculture is depressed.
High Exchequer support, which has been the order of the day, has given us our food at reasonable prices which compare favourably with those of any highly developed country in Western Europe or elsewhere. We must bear in mind, however, that the consumer has a point of view which the Minister must consider when working out the details of any marketing scheme. I will not labour the question of Exchequer support. Hon. Members on both sides know the figures.
The Minister must also consider E.F.T.A., to which he referred this afternoon. Denmark wishes to have a larger share of our home market. Naturally, as a country, we have to balance the question of our industrial exports and the rapid elimination of industrial tariffs with the need of the Danes and our home market. This is not easy. It is something which will have to be negotiated and the Minister is now involved in working out the detailed negotiations.
There is the problem of the British Commonwealth. I am glad that hon. Members opposite are converted to the Commonwealth. There was a danger during the Common Market negotiations, when the Government rejected and, indeed, discouraged any approach to bring about Commonwealth unity. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and others often prodded the Government on this matter. It would be wrong if we failed to meet the desires of Commonwealth producers. This matter can be dealt with only by careful and hard negotiations. We have to balance these interests and to decide who, in the end, shall produce Britain's food and at what cost. For these reasons, we must inevitably balance our home and imported supplies.
The Minister referred in his speech to the general policy which was partly


foreshadowed in his Annual Price Review. Then the guaranteed price payments were related to specified quantities. For example, in the ease of pigs the guaranteed price is to be adjusted to number of pigs slaughtered. This confirms what the Minister said today, that we must think in terms of a guaranteed price related to specified quantities of food.
There is one matter, however, which I should like to take up with the Government, and that is the role of production grants. These are running at a very high figure, over £100 million. These grants are essential in many respects to improve efficiency and to enable the Government to inject capital into a certain section of the industry. What is the Government's policy on production grants? This was foreshadowed during our debates on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, when I remember quoting from Gavin McCrone's "The Economics of Subsidising Agriculture".
Mr. McCrone refers to the fact that it has been the Government's deliberate policy to divert their main support more and more to production grants. This may be the right policy. I should like to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland whether this policy will continue and whether more and more support is to be diverted from deficiency payments to direct grants. This has been the tendency over the last four or five years. It is important that we should know how these grants will fit into any new policy.
We have a right to press the Minister on the question of production in the industry. It is all very well to say that we shall have a more efficient industry, but there is the problem of over-production. What is our target? We must have a policy which aims at increasing efficiency on the farm. Why are we having production grants and why are we seeking to develop our National Agricultural Advisory Service and doing what is outlined in the broad policy statement of the Government if we are not seeking to improve the efficiency of each farm unit to make it more viable? If we talk about efficiency and increased productivity on the farm, that must mean increased production.
This is discussed at great length in the Report of the National Economic De-

velopment Council enlitled "Growth of the United Kingdom Economy to 1966". I congratulate the authors of this document on their fine annexe dealing with agriculture. Most hon. Members will have read it. It deals with the growth of agricultural output from 1956 right up to an estimate of what we should have in 1966. Is it the Government's intention to pursue a policy of increased production? Are we seeking to expand quickly our own home production? We had no indication on that from the Minister today.
May I quote from page 62 of this semi-official document:
The industry contributes to growth in two ways. First, efficient production from the land helps the balance of payments by enabling us to displace imports of agricultural produce; secondly. greater efficiency of resource utilisation in agriculture contributes to growth.
Do the Government accept this Report? Js it the Government's policy to increase production? Is it their argument that this is the way to challenge our balance of payments problem? The Government should give a clear indication of their policy.
The whole of the section on agriculture in this Report deals with aspects of growth which are important for the industry. On page 67 the Council outlines a policy for dealing with the problem. It refers to the need for effective planning, for the effective organisation of marketing and for the maintenance of adequate credit facilities. This is a policy which we have pressed the Government to adopt. This Report confirms again and again some of our main criticisms. That is why I ask the Government to declare their policy on this essential balance of payments problem.
There was a very challenging article in the Sunday Times only recently by William Rees-Mogg on this problem. Is it the Government's intention to have more home production, or is it their intention to phase our imports with home production under this new arrangement and to have a policy whereby home production remains stable? Will the Government continue to drive out the small farmer? The Minister said that he was very anxious to safeguard the position of the small farmer, but is that true? In many instances, the small farmer has


been driven out of business by Government policy. Pressure of events has forced many small farmers out of business.
Let me give the figures of the number of milk producers. In 1954, there were 179,740 registered milk producers in the United Kingdom. In 1956, the figure had fallen to 170,440. In 1958, it had dropped to 162,600, in 1960 to 151,700 and in 1962 to 143,100. Is this the way in which the Government intend to deal with the small farmer? Is it their intention to make units larger and more viable, to use a fashionable term, and to drive the small man out by pressure of events?
Do the Government intend to allow this trend to continue? All hon. Members wish to know. Or do they seek to provide the small farmer with more credit facilities, aid under extended small farmer schemes, help through producer corporations and other administrative means of giving the small farmer a role in our agricultural economy? The small farmer is the backbone of our industry; 60 per cent. of our farms are under 100 acres. He is the backbone of our agricultural economy. He can be affected by any major change of Government policy.
While I pay tribute to those on larger acreages who have contributed to more efficient production and the new methods of agricultural research which are being applied to the industry, I remind the Parliamentary Secretary, who looks a little doubtful about this, that the head of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, not long ago, praised the small farmers. There are 140,000 of them. He said that the small man must have a place in our agricultural economy.

Mr. P. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way in that spate of words. The Minister said that our population was increasing and that he expected our farmers to take a larger share of the home market. Does not the hon. Member accept that evolution is going on and that there are fewer farms in this country?
Is it not the job of any Government to do what the Government are doing—to cushion the evolution by introducing such things as producer subsidies and small farmer schemes? The hon. Member gave figures for milk producers. These do not prove that the farmers went out of farm-

ing. They mean that they stopped selling milk. What would the hon. Gentleman do about it?

Mr. Peart: Many small farmers have been pushed completely out of business. That is a fact. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, will develop this point, because it has been a real problem, particularly in Wales.

Mr. Harold Davies: There are over 300, nearly 400, fewer small farmers in north Staffordshire alone than in 1952.

Mr. Peart: If the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) is in any doubt, he should consult his own branch of the N.F.U.

Mr. P. Browne: I have been a farmer on a small farm for fifteen years. I am a member of the N.F.U.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member may be a bad farmer.
To suggest that the small farmer is not worried about his future is nonsense. I have spoken to the N.F.U. in Devon and elsewhere in the area and I know that there is concern in the South-West and in many other parts of the country among the small farmers, particularly about the man who relies on one commodity. He could well be affected by any Government policy announced today. I should have thought that the hon. Member would support me in my comments. He should not get angry. He is usually rather pleasant, even if he is giving up his seat at the next election.
May we have an indication of Government policy? Is the Minister thinking in terms of a five-year production policy such as is foreshadowed in the N.E.D.C. Report, which is a semi-official document? Do we intend to have a five-year food plan by which we can assess what should be the target for home production? I agree with the Minister that we have to think of the pressure of food surpluses on our home market.
I have stressed repeatedly that this is partly the key to our own agricultural approach. I am glad that producers have recognised this in their own "Farm and Food Plan". We have always said that we should press for world commodity


agreements. There is a need for international commodity agreements for our basic commodities, such as wheat, meat and dairy products. The Minister has reinforced that point of view. At the same time, I take the view that we should have not only international commodity agreements, but also limited regional commodity agreements. This is an urgent matter affecting, for example, mutton and lamb from New Zealand.
We must also work with the European Community. I took a critical view of the Common Market policy in relation to agriculture and my view has been reinforced by events, but we must still have reasonable agreements with Europe. The body for this is the O.E.C.D. This is the way in which such international agreements should work. Every year we could have within these regional organisations, such as O.E.C.D., a confrontation of national agricultural policies affecting production, prices and farm incomes. This is essential. We cannot plan our home agriculture unless we bear in mind what it happening in Europe, the Common. wealth and elsewhere. There must be an approach to international understanding through international commodity agreements.
I am glad that the Minister has emphasised that we should participate in a world food programme. It is ironical and sad that we are talking about farm surpluses in a world which is still facing the challenge of hunger, in which millions of our fellow men, women and children are under-nourished and starving. And yet we are discussing how the surpluses in the Western world and even in this country can affect our stability. Somehow, the Western world must take the initiative. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that we will participate in a world food campaign.
The Minister asks me for suggestions. I suggest that we take the initiative at F.A.O. in this matter. It was discussed in Copenhagen as far back as 1946, when a World Food Board was mooted. I should like to see a World Food Board which would seek to stabilise the prices of agricultural commodities in the world market, including the provision of the necessary funds for stabilising operations.
I should like to see a world food reserve. too, adequate to meet any emergency which may arise. I could develop

this argument, but will merely say now that somehow we must come to this concept of world planning and a World Food Board, which would also supervise the international commodity agreements and, perhaps, the regional agreements which I have mentioned. We require international planning,
Lastly, and my main theme today, we must then come back to our national policy at home. The Minister has talked about marketing, but what do the Government intend to do? We have often prodded the Government to produce their schemes for marketing. The Minister has said that it is not his responsibility. I remember one of the first speeches he made to the Farmers' Club, in 1961, when he said that
the job of marketing is one for the industry itself.
The right hon. Gentleman repeated this a year later. He repeated this at the Oxford farm conference. It is time that the Minister took the initiative. It is time that the Government realised that marketing is partly their responsibility. It is not something which we can just leave to the industry.
In the case of meat, how are we to co-ordinate and phase our imports unless we are to bring in some sort of new machinery? How are we to do this—just write letters to the Argentine Government, as the Minister has done over the past few months? We want Her Majesty's Government to be really specific. It was only after we raised the problem of meat production and its effect on the Exchequer payments that the Minister produced his estimate in February last year. He announced the setting up of a committee to investigate the meat industry, and no doubt the Minister is now waiting for the report of the Verdon Smith committee, but, in the end, it is for the Government to take the initiative.
I should like to see—I will be quite frank here—some new machinery which would co-ordinate and regulate our imports and phase them with home production. I should like to see commodity commissions for meat and cereals. I am sure that this would be welcomed even in the trade. I got a letter this morning on this from a leading producer who takes the view that this is a"must". A new statutory body must be brought into


being which would be continually sitting, a body independent of the industry, a small body which would regulate and phase imports.
Many hon. Members opposite, I know, take this view. I am sure that the trade would welcome such a proposal. I was guest of honour on Monday night at the Institute of Meat, where I met many of our traders with the Argentine and other countries, and what responsible people in the industry say is that they are tired of the uncertainty of the present situation and that there must be some new machinery to co-ordinate imports. Will the Government do something? It is all very well for the Minister to come to the House today and say, "I believe in marketing". He must speak out in relation to commodity commissions.
I should like to see for horticulture a new statutory authority. The Minister did not mention horticulture today, yet the horticultural industry is a large section of our food-producing industry. We want urgently a new statutory authority which will plan our wholesale markets. We have pressed the Government to do something about marketing. As yet, we are not certain what the Minister will do. It is all very well for him now to change his mind on essential planning—we welcome this—but we still wish to know what are the details of this policy, details which have not been forthcoming today.
We on this side accept that it is not easy to work out a completely satisfactory solution for our agricultural problems. The industry is so varied. Also, we are concerned not only with home production, but with food from many of our traditional suppliers abroad. The industry has a long history and has faced many very complex problems. Therefore, it is essential not only to declare one's principles but also, when one is in government, to give the details. I hope that when the Minister has come to some conclusions about the details he will present a White Paper which we shall be able to debate here when we have another Parliamentary opportunity.
We assert that essential marketing and planning is vital for the industry, vital for the producer, vital for the consumer and vital for the nation. We maintain

that the Government bear a main responsibility for the indecision which has rested upon the industry, the uncertainty which still hangs over it. The negotiations over the Common Market, the failure of the Minister to respond with adequate marketing facilities—all this indicates that the Government cannot be trusted to deal with agricultural matters.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Anthony Hurd: I was disappointed with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). I think I could have done a jolly sight better myself in criticising the Government.

Mr. Peart: Do so.

Sir A. Hurd: Really, he did not tell us anything new. It was all the old stuff which we heard in 1955 and in 1959, and no doubt we shall hear it again when the next election comes along. Of course, he had only 16 colleagues of his on the Opposition benches to inspire him.
Anyway, I do not think we need spend a great deal of time on criticising this year's Price Review, or, indeed, other policy decisions of recent years. I realise, as clearly as anyone does, that not all farmers on all farms in the country have been doing well. They never have done in my forty years' experience, and they never will do; it is not in the nature of the farming business. But if we take the broad picture of what has been happening in our land, looking back over our own lifetimes, we find that really the industry has been going places.
It had the great challenge, the great spur, of the war years. That has continued until now under successive Governments on the basis of assured markets and prices. The industry has seized hold of the new things which science has brought along, the new techniques. So today we have an industry producing 86 per cent. more than it did before the war, and it is an industry which, by that performance, has undoubtedly greatly strengthened our balance of payments position. I am one who believes that we should continue in that course and that the good of the nation will require it.
As I look around the country I find that the land is in good heart, and I believe that the people of the country are in good heart. They know that they are doing a good job, especially when we


remember that the agricultural labour force has been falling, failing very rapidly. There are 200,000 fewer people working on the land than there were ten years ago, a reduction of about 25 per cent. There has also been a sharp reduction of 12 per cent. in the number of separate farms. This shows that a good many of the least economic, little farms, and some of the part-time holdings which were formally listed as farms, have been grouped together to make farms which will provide a better living and make more economic units. While this has been going on—the employment of fewer people, fewer farmers and fewer farms —nearly twice as much is being produced as before the war. This is a great record of productivity which it is worth underlining in National Productivity Year. If all our industries were going ahead like this our country would indeed be in a very happy and prosperous state.
We do not lack vigour or young life in our industry. I spent last Saturday at the Berkshire Young Farmers' Club rally. The people there were full of beans, and, of course, they took a knock at the Government, and quite rightly. They were taking their cue from their elders in the National Farmers' Union. They had great fun with their decorated floats. One was pillorying Dr. Beeching's new railway plans, and others portrayed some of the terrible things that are happening to agriculture because the Government have failed to come to grips with the import position and have allowed the price for home produce to fall below the levels which some members of the N.F.U. would like. We expect this sort of criticism from our young people. It would be disappointing if they were not full of criticism of their elders. It is right and proper that the young should be, but remember how British agriculture has forged ahead year by year; and after hearing my right hon. Friend today think that we are now on a course which will enable us to go ahead still further.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. He has done mighty well to carry his Cabinet colleagues with him in pronouncing today a balanced policy for food and agriculture. This should do several important things. First, it confirms the basis of price support for British agriculture, retaining the principle of the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts. It is on that basis that agriculture has gone for-

ward in these last few years, and there is no reason why home food production should not continue to increase. As my right hon. Friend said, the market will be expanding. We shall have to be stronger contenders in the market through better marketing organisations, and I think that we shall now have a basis of confidence to enable us to get ahead with developments.
These new organisations may be marketing boards. If that is what the industry wants, I would not object to them. There may be a marketing board for cereals and one for meat. Certainly the Milk Marketing Board has done a good job for the dairy farmer, and it may be that if the industry wants it we can have a board to deal with cereals and a similar organisation to deal with meat. We have to grapple with marketing problems much more effectively than we have done in the past. I believe that these organisations can run most smoothly when they are inspired by producers and are not overlaid with too many appointed members or try to represent too many different interests.
My right hon. Friend referred to standard quantities, and I am sure that there will be further references to this topic. My right hon. Friend spoke about standard quantities being attached to the amounts of home production that are to be covered by price guarantees. There is nothing new in this idea. As those who have followed the working out in practice of the Agriculture Acts know, this principle of standard quantities applies to liquid milk. We have it with eggs now, and we have it with pigs, with potatoes and with sugar beet. Indeed over a whole range of products we have the standard quantity principle in operation, and I do not find anything alarming about it. It is right and reasonable that British agriculture should make a contribution to a steady market which will benefit us all. If by our enterprise and skill in marketing we can earn a bigger share of the market, and it is an expanding one, the standard quantities can be increased, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will press for that to be done.
Secondly, I think that this policy which sets out to stabilise prices in the British food market by controlling imports will enable imports to be integrated and


balanced not only in quantity but in timing with what we produce at home. This should effect considerable savings in the Exchequer support which British agriculture has had to call on in recent years. The Committee hardly needs reminding that in the first three months of this year, when so much additional Argentine beef came unexpectedly on to our market, the subsidy bill on home-killed beef rose to £9 million as against £5·4 million in the first three months of 1962.
I hope that we shall carry this policy to the point not only of stabilising the market but of considerably strengthening it so that we can aim at effecting a saving of say, £100 million a year out of the £240 million of taxpayers money which we are today using for farm price support. I think that we must be fairly clear about the levels at which we want the market to be stabilised.
Thirdly, with this policy we shall be using the importance of the British food market as a trading asset when we do our business in the world. I think that here we must see that our special concern is with Commonwealth trade. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will want to keep their full share of the British market, and they should be the more ready to afford corresponding advantages to us when we go to sell our manufactured goods and our services in their markets. Trade with Denmark and Argentine? Yes, of course, in so far as they justify their claims to access to the British food market. We have here a unique asset. Let us use it to full advantage in strengthening our trade policies throughout the world. I put the Commonwealth first because I think that it will respond the more readily, and then we come to our other established traditional trading friends in the world. I put them all well ahead of Jugoslavia, Poland, Roumania and those others whom I think we should deal with last.
The Minister spoke mostly about cereals and meat. These are the two major items in the British farms support bill. They present urgent problems, and so does the dairy produce market, which is of particular concern to New Zealand. I hope that we shall soon move on to consider integrating imports and home production and thus get a more stabil-

ised price for butter, cheese and other dairy products than we have so far achieved. It is time that we have taken emergency measures over butter quotas, and this has had the desired effect, but it is not a permanent policy, and it cannot be altogether satisfactory to New Zealand, Australia, and our other Commonwealth friends, let alone to Denmark.
We do not know which methods of import control are likely to be the most effective for the various commodities. It will take time to work these out. I do not think that we should pin too much confidence on getting an early result from the discussions now starting at the G.A.T.T. meeting about international commodity agreements. I wish them well; we all do. It would be a great simplification of our problem if we could get international commodity agreements, with arrangements to siphon off surpluses which weigh heavily on the world's markets and which depress prices, and move them into the quarters of the world where they could really do good in building up the nutrition of people who are not so well fed as they should be. I think it will be difficult to get completely comprehensive commodity agreements. I hope that we can, and we should certainly work for it. I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister said, but I do not think that we should allow our agriculture or food policy to depend on getting an early result in that quarter. I am sure that we must take action on our own which will be complementary to and fit in with international commodity agreements when they come.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm tonight that we are meanwhile to carry on fully our price support system under the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts, costly though that system may be. and that we shall also continue to be ready at short notice to safeguard our markets from overloading by unforeseen supplies, such as the extra shipments of Argentine beef that we saw early this year, or with excess arrivals of butter from all quarters which weighed on our market so much last year and which worried our New Zealand friends. I hope that we shall always be ready if necessary to control by quota, preferably by agreement, in order to limit the


supplies and to level them out month by month.
We must be ready to act promptly and not have to wait either for Members of this House or the National Farmers' Union to prod the Board of Trade on import figures before action is taken. I hope the Government will say, "We have got this running well now and intend to keep it that way as the basis for this broader policy which we are developing." The Cabinet have come to grips with events as they have developed since the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations.
I was very glad to see my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade sitting beside my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because it is very important that all Ministers should not only speak with one voice but should think with one mind about these problems. Quite a bit of education has had to be done. I believe that it has been achieved, and I am pretty confident now that we are moving on the right course thanks to a good many jabs from several directions. I very much hope that this food import policy will soon be developed in more final and detailed form as an essential part of our national economic policy.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved with his colleagues. I wish him well. This is a policy which should serve our own country well and our Commonwealth friends well, because they will have a stable market and will know how they stand when they send their produce to us. It will benefit our trading partners; it will ease the load on the taxpayer, and it will not hurt the consumer. Really it does not benefit the public when we have these extra supplies unexpectedly thrown on our markets. How much of the £4 million odd that went in beef subsidy in the first three months of this year filtered through to the consumer of beef? It certainly did not come through in full measure.
I am sure that it is in the interests of everyone concerned with the food markets and British agriculture that this policy now outlined by my right hon. Friend should succeed. I wish him and his colleagues well in pursuing it.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: I am glad that the Labour Party found time out of its limited number of Supply days for this important debate on agriculture. Despite the crack of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) that it was he who had worked the oracle, I would remind the Committee that I pleaded with the Leader of the House a fortnight ago to give Government time for this debate. The Government refused to allow the time, and I applaud the Opposition on finding the necessary day out of the few precious days allocated to us for this purpose. I am not surprised that the Tory Government refused to find official Government time to debate agriculture, because they know, despite what the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir H. Hurd) has said, of the grave dissatisfaction all over the country with the Government concerning the present position in agriculture.
If the hon. Member for Newbury is not aware of this, may I remind him that it is only a very few weeks ago that we had a number of irate farmers from Norfolk, Devon and other parts of the country in the Lobby complaining of the treatment meted out to those in agriculture by the Government. If the hon. Gentleman wants further evidence, may I advise him to consult his hon. Friend, and my neighbour, the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), who, I believe, has been put through the mill in no uncertain manner in recent weeks by irate farmers in south Norfolk? If still further evidence is needed, only yesterday I presented to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a petition signed by 720 dissatisfied farmers, many of them from the constituency of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South and from my own, protesting at the present adverse trend in agriculture. The farmers are very apprehensive as to the future of this important industry. Therefore, I want to present an entirely different picture from that portrayed by the hon. Member for Newbury.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I can quite understand his enjoying very much the discomfiture of the Government over a problem of this sort, but can he tell me of any one piece of policy which his party has put forward


which will give the answer to the agricultural problem of this country?

Mr. Hilton: I should not have to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not the Government of the country. However, I prefer to carry on with my speech, and it is the criticism of the Tory Government's policy for agriculture to which I am referring.
Of course, to some extent the Minister's statement this afternoon has forestalled some of the criticism that I had ready to level against him this afternoon, if further evidence were needed of the plight of agriculture at the present time. There is the question of agricultural apprentices. In Norfolk and other important agricultural counties the number of youngsters applying to become apprentices to this important industry is very disappointing, and in some counties, including my own, hardly exists at all. I think that this is an indication that at the present time many people can see no future in the industry. I do not share that view because I believe that, in the right hands, there is a great future for British agriculture. It is important for young people to be attracted to agriculture and to be taught the "know-how".
I am pretty sure that quite soon we are going to have a change of Government, and I believe that youngsters will then be encouraged to come into the industry. This is the state of affairs after twelve years of Tory Government, and we must remember that this followed six years of general satisfaction in agriculture. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) does not seem to agree with my statement that from 1945 to 1951 there was general all-round satisfaction in British agriculture at a time when we had a Labour Government, with my noble Friend, then Tom Williams, at the helm.
One thing which I have never been able to understand is why farmers who invest their money in food production are expected to do so for a far smaller financial return than are people who invest in industry. I do not have to remind the Committee of the importance of food production. Neither can I understand why farm workers doing this important job, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) remarked, are expected by so many

people to work longer hours for a far smaller wage than their counterparts in industry.
Since the war, production from our farms has increased steadily by 50 per cent., but my farmer friends tell me that farm incomes in the same period have increased by only 11 per cent. On the other hand, industrial production has increased by about the same amount—50 per cent.—but the incomes of industrialists have kept pace with production and gone up by 50 per cent. It does not make sense to me, and I have never been able to understand why this should be so. After all, the farmers and farm workers of this country have a splendid record and they deserve far better treatment.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: If this sad story is really factual, will the hon. Gentleman explain why farmers of their cwn free will are prepared to pay the earth for grazing for their cattle during the summer? Does he really think that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) looks threadbare and miserable?

Mr. Hilton: If the hon. Member considers that it is a fairy story I am trying to tell the Committee, I can assure him that that is not the view of the average farmer in Norfolk. I am not talking about people in the same category as the hon. Member and a number of his colleagues, nor of my lucky friend the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie). I do not regard either as the average normal farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers who do their best to get a living from their farms alone. Those are the people with whom I am concerned. People who have eggs in a number of baskets are, of course, in a different category. I am not referring to them specifically.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Circencester and Tewkesbury): The hon. Gentleman also said that farmers do not get as good return on capital invested as industrialists. Has he any figures to substantiate that statement, which I would have thought was quite untrue?

Mr. Hilton: I am quoting figures given me by Norfolk farmers. This is National Productivity Year, when everybody is asked to increase production. The Chancellor in his Budget speech laid


emphasis on increased production, and everybody accepts the need for it in industry.
I cannot understand why farmers are not expected to share in this increased production. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington asked the Minister point blank if it was the Government's intention to encourage increased production from the farmers. He refused to answer that question. After all, it was a restrictionist Price Review, and as the Minister failed to answer the question I think that we can take it that the Government do not intend to encourage increased production from our farmers.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked for a reply either from the Minister or from the Secretary of State when winding up, so I do not think that it is quite fair to attack the Minister for not answering.

Mr. Hilton: I hope that we shall get a favourable answer to that question anyway.
The point that I wish to make is this. At a time in history when millions of people in other parts of the world are starving, it is up to us in this country to produce all the food we can. If there are surpluses they should be diverted to the starving millions in other parts of the world. We have just been hearing of the wonderful performance of another American astronaut, and in these days of wonderful inventions it should not be beyond mankind to be able to divert surpluses of food to areas which are badly in need of them.
I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) is quite shortly to lead a delegation to America, to the F.A.O., to discuss this problem. I am sorry that the Minister is not at present in the Chamber, because I intended to put a question to him. It has been customary when similar delegations have gone to F.A.O. for one representative of the workers of this country to be included in it. This time no worker is included in the delegation, and I wanted to suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider this matter. I believe that the workers' representative has an important part to play in these discussions.
To come back to the question of production and surpluses, less than a year ago we had the situation in this country in which it was admitted that millions of pints of surplus milk had been poured down disused mines. Never again should that state of affairs occur in this country or in any other country, while there are so many people so desperately in need of it
I am often asked a question by farmers in my constituency, and I think that it is a legitimate one: in recent years, why is it that we have to pay more for nearly everything we buy, farm machinery, fertilisers and other things, when we get less for nearly everything we produce? This is an important question, and I hope that the Government will be able to give a satisfactory answer to it. I believe that it will be very difficult for the Government to give an answer satisfactory to Norfolk farmers.
There is another important matter which I hope the Government will take note of. When I presented a petition to the Minister yesterday I was asked by the Norfolk farmers to inquire if the Minister would receive a deputation from them in the near future to discuss their problems. It is not a request by the National Farmers' Union, although many of those Norfolk farmers, probably all of them, are members of the N.F.U. It is not, however, as members of the N.F.U. that they have asked that the Minister should meet them. I hope he will accede to their request.
The subject of farm workers was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. He asked why they should receive worse treatment than industrial workers. At present they receive £4 10s. a week less, on average, than workers in industry. We also have the old complaint about the tied cottage. For years we have requested various Conservative Governments to introduce legislation to make it impossible for farm workers to be turned out of their tied cottages before alternative accommodation is provided. I am not saying that many farm workers are turned out in this shocking way, but it is quite wrong that any should be turned out and this system should not be countenanced in 1963. Even now I hope that the Government will have second thoughts on the matter and will introduce legislation to deal with this state of affairs.
Another complaint of farm workers is that they do not have sick pay schemes, although industrial workers do. I do not see why a sick pay scheme should not be introduced. Everybody seems to be sympathetic to the plight of farm workers until they ask for an increase in wages or benefits. I remind the Committee that no section of our workers has a better industrial record than the farm workers. It is forty years since we had a strike of agricultural workers in Norfolk. In view of their record they are entitled to far better treatment.
We were all glad to hear the Minister's statement about import control. This is something that we have been pressing for, together with all sections of the community concerned with agriculture. In fact, only the Tory Government have taken the opposite view. I am glad that they have seen the light at last and intend to do something about it. I realise that it is too early to expect them to go into details, but the Minister's announcement on this matter and his suggestion about improved marketing arrangements are long overdue improvements. When we receive the details of what the Minister has in mind, I hope that we shall be told about new markets as well as marketing arrangements. The two things go together. We must have new markets if the new arrangements are to be carried out satisfactorily. I suspect that these suggestions by the Minister are really vote catchers for a fairly early General Election. Nevertheless, I welcome them.
The Minister also reminded us of the support which the Government propose to give to agriculture during the current year. We knew of this, but I hope that the Government will see to it that the money will really go to the farmers this year—to the people for whom it is intended. Another complaint of the Norfolk farmers is that too much Government money goes into the wrong pockets—the pockets of the middlemen. I hope that on this occasion great care will be taken to ensure that the help Wes to the people for whom it is really intended.
A year ago £78 million mysteriously disappeared and nobody would admit having had it. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members opposite are becoming agitated. I know that many other hon.

Members are anxious to speak, and I shall refer only to a few more important matters. First, there is the question of swine fever. I recently raised this matter in the House, and the Minister gave me some rather alarming figures concerning the number of outbreaks and the amount of compensation given, which was fairly large. On that occasion I asked that more money should be made available for research into the cause of this disease and into the question whether it was advisable to vaccinate against it. Some Norfolk farmers are advised to vaccinate and others are advised against it. There is some confusion in the matter. By this time the Minister ought to be in a position to advise farmers whether or not they should vaccinate against the disease. If no action is taken the disease will get out of control, as fowl pest did a year or two ago, in Norfolk.
In the near future there should be a completely new charter for British agriculture, to ensure fair returns to all farmers and proper rewards for farm workers. This is the oldest and still the most important industry not merely in this country but in the world. As food producers, farmers are entitled to, and should receive, as good a return for the money they invest as do industrialists, and farm workers should receive treatment comparable to that given to industrial workers. They have never had it in twelve years of Conservative Government. We shall shortly have a return to a Labour Government, when we shall probably have a new charter. This will be welcomed by everybody in Norfolk who is interested in the welfare of agriculture.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I was surprised at the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). He seemed to feel that it was all our fault that difficulties have arisen in changing to a new agricultural policy. He ignores the fact that we made a very determined effort to change our entire agricultural economy when we applied to join the Common Market. When those negotiations first started, on 2nd August, 1961, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
I believe that there is a growing realisation that with changing world conditions we are


faced with the possibility of changes anyway."
—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1487.]
The Government were fully aware of the need for changes as long as two years ago. What happened was that the system would clearly have been affected by the decision to join the Common Market. It would, therefore, have been quite unrealistic to try to bring about alterations before the negotiations unfortunately failed in January of this year.

Mr. Peart: That is precisely what I said. The danger was that we might have gone into the Common Market and the 1947 and 1957 Acts would have been jettisoned. That is why we pressed for safeguards. The danger was that the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal were going in the wrong direction.

Mr. Ridley: I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on the Common Market agricultural policy, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in his appreciation of that policy and its effect on British agriculture. When we look at the present situation, we come to the conclusion that we are moving closely to that same system although we are not actually proposing to join the Market.
I believe that farmers will be glad to hear of the plans announced today by my right hon. Friend, and that these plans will achieve some of the things which would have been done under the Common Market system. The whole of the agricultural community will watch with interest the development of the details, which are much more important than the broad outline. These are the things by which we shall judge the new policy. I congratulate the Government on moving so quickly for the first time in this sphere. I have every sympathy with the concern which has been felt by farmers during the two years of waiting, because that is how I regard the last two years, as a period when we were waiting for the Common Market to come, or now, for a new policy.
With the subsidy running at £360 million a year it is understandable that one should feel vulnerable. It presented a "sitting duck" for politicians to aim at, particularly politicians representing urban constituencies who in the past few months, together with others, have done

much criticising. We have heard of all sorts of figures relating to the farm subsidy and the high proportion which it represents of the total farming income. But in terms of the total farming turnover it is very small indeed. There has always been the fear of a change of Government which in some way might endanger the present arrangements by which farmers receive their income. There has been the fear each February that the Price Review would impose some further burden.
I have noticed the resentment which is felt against the middlemen in food production—the butchers, the grain merchants and others—who, it is alleged, have been taking a large proportion of the subsidy. I do not believe that there is any foundation for this accusation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to it. I think that we have been allowing members of worthy professions to be slighted, and I do not think they have had an unreasonable share of the profits resulting from the general production of food.
It is easy to expound a wise and sensible agricultural policy when one is at the Ministry, or speaking in the House, or taking part in a conference. It is easy to make arrangements which sound sensible and which bear economic scrutiny. It is extremely difficult for a farmer to work out what this means to him individually and how he can influence the situation and how it will affect his day-to-day buying and production policies.
I have noticed the gap between the broad, sensible direction of farming policy at the centre and its understanding and comprehension at the fringes. To particularise, I wish to refer to a paragraph which appears in this year's Price Review referring to pigs, to the effect that the Government will be widening the stabilising limits this year preparatory to abolishing the separate stabilisers at the next Review. To me that sounds more like the design instructions for a supersonic aircraft than anything to do with the future price of pigs. I am certain that there are few people who really understand the whole conception of the pig subsidy and how it works in detail, admirable though it may be as an economic principle of how to control this difficult industry.
This brings me to my first point relating to the new policy. I hope that when the proposals become less sketchy and more firm my right hon. Friend will continually bear in mind the need to make it possible for every farmer to be clear about what the arrangements mean and how he would be affected if certain things happened; if there were to be increased production, why it is that the price he receives may drop and how he can influence the situation by his own actions. In this matter intelligibility is extremely important, and I hope that the scheme will be explained with the greatest care.
I wish to refer to expansion of production upon which the hon. Member for Workington spoke at some length. The main reason why in the past Governments have discouraged expansion of agricultural production in this country is that inevitably there is an automatic increase in the subsidy bill; and that is an understandable reason. But if my right hon. Friend succeeds in fixing the bottom end of the market—and I hope that will result in a great reduction of the total subsidy, because the farmer will get a larger proportion of his total income from the market rather from the taxpayer—in my opinion that motive will become less important. Furthermore, if by the control of imports my right hon. Friend succeeds in putting up the prices received by overseas suppliers, it will land us in a worse balance of payments situation than we are at present. We shall be paying, possibly, more for the same quantity of food. In this situation, it seems to me that there will be very strong motives for allowing an expansion of foodstuff production. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not be too rigid in defining any limitation on production and will allow reasonable margins for expansion in ways best suited to the industry.
In the last few years, as was said by my right hon. Friend, we have changed from being a sellers' market to being a buyers' market. It is noticeable that the prices of practically everything imported into the country bear no relation to the cost of production. French wheat has been coming in at under £20 a ton, whereas the internal price is about £33 a ton. M. Pisani,

the French Minister of Agriculture, in a speech the other day referred to this as being an act of extreme generosity on the part of the French Government, designed to subsidise our industrial products, for which we should show him nothing but gratitude. That attitude is not adopted in this country. We should use the strength of our position to a certain extent. It is worth noticing that the bulk of our supplies of feedingstuffs and food come from prosperous countries. France is prosperous. So are Canada and Australia. These three countries have standards of living higher than our own, and New Zealand is close on their heels.
I do not think that we should make the mistake of thinking that those countries which supply our food are underdeveloped countries to whom we should show every sort of respect and kindness in trying to boost their incomes. We are in a difficult trading position, and we must be tough and use our position as the major food market to make as good a bargain as we can when making arrangements for the future.
My right hon. Friend does not say whether he would prefer import controls on the basis of quantities or quotas or whether he would prefer to have price control in some way to affect the prices of imports. This is a very important point. I do not think it easy to fix quantities by controls and the sort of planning which hon. Members opposite talk about—fixing so many tons and so many shipments for different times of the year. I do not think it within the wit of man, however hard he studies the problem, to get it right. It is bound to go wrong, and then it opens up all the possibilities, with shortages and black market dealing such as we have had in the past. It is very difficult to plan quotas like this. There are opportunities for going beyond strictly honest dealing in the fixing of such quotas.
I prefer the idea of trying to control the price at which food comes into our markets. My right hon. Friend has spoken about minimum prices, but he did not specify whether he meant to use levies or tariffs on food coming in, the yield of which the British Exchequer would keep, or whether he would make contracts at high prices so that the difference between the present low prices and the market


prices will be kept by the exporting Government. We should try to raise from levies on imported food a large part of the subsidy. By heightening the bottom end of the market we could make agriculture very nearly balance in the Exchequer accounts without in any way damaging incomes 'of farmers.
I think this new policy is, and certainly could be, a step towards making our agriculture more like that of Europe. I know there are many drawbacks in the European system, and I would not for a moment advocate that we should copy every part of it, but it is obvious that if at a future date we are to join Europe the more we can align our two systems the more likely we are to find it easy and less painful to make the decision to join. We rather asked for one of the jibes made by President de Gaulle at his Press conference on 14th January when he said:
The question is to know whether Great Britain…;can now cease any pretence that her agriculture is privileged.
Some people here presented our agriculture as if it needed a special privilege, whereas in my opinion it is one of the most efficient, competitive, modem and first-class agricultures in the world. I hope that on any future occasion we shall not put ourselves in the position of being open to such a jibe.

5.54 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I do not altogether share the enthusiasm or optimism of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I disagree with him on many of the points he raised—he will not be surprised to hear that—but I found myself in complete agreement when he said that he hoped there would be no rigid limitation of production. I hope that we shall not go in for a policy of reduced production.
There was a phrase in the Minister's speech which I found disquieting, and that was when he said that one of the items of the commodity agreements was that there should be no over-stimulation of production. I hope that before the end of this debate we shall have a clear explanation of what over-stimulation of production means. I agree with all hon. Members who have said that in a world where half the population is under-

nourished it would be quite indefensible to have commodity agreements between nations which in any sense restricted production.
The Minister has told us today how he intends to reconcile loyalty to the principles of the 1946 and 1947 Acts with a modification or change in the open-ended subsidy. He said that he was not going to depart from the principles governing the 1946 and 1947 Acts. I think the phrase he used was that he was going to adapt and tailor them. I hope we shall have a further explanation of what "tailor" means, because it is open to all kinds of interpretations. I am sure he will not be surprised that representatives in the House of farming areas are a little suspicious, because the process of whittling down and eroding of the 1946 Act has gone on over the years particularly in the last ten years.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) spoke about the financial position of farmers. He said that not all individual farmers are doing well all the time. Of course not, but be said that we must take the broad view, and the broad view is that the farming community has not shared in the general improvement. The facts are that in the terms of purchasing power the net farming income was substantially lower in 1962 than in 1952. This was the general position which the hon. Member invited us to look at. I agree with him when he says that the farming community has certainly kept its side of the bargain.
There is no doubt that they have increased efficiency. They have increased productivity by 80 per cent. over prewar days. If anything like that ratio had been achieved in other industries our industrial position today would be very different and our place in the "league tables" would have been very much higher. There is no doubt that year by year farmers have increased their efficiency through mechanisation and other means. They have applied science to farming practice. There has been nothing short of a revolution in agriculture in the past few years. That has been made possible—let us face it—by guaranteed prices and guaranteed markets. I am sure that the hon. Member agrees with me about that. It is true that this revolution has taken place in production, in productivity and efficiency,


but it certainly has not taken place in distribution.
This is where we are still lagging way behind and that is particularly true in meat marketing. I was very disappointed in this respect by the Minister's speech today. He told us about the quantitative control on the subsidy level for fatstock. I am very glad that he made it quite clear that we are to start from the present level and not from a more restricted basis. I am sure we shall all note those words of the Minister and keep him to them. I am certain that the farmers and the farmers' unions will also keep him to them.
I was glad to hear of the arrangements for the control of imports. There is no doubt that farmers have been exposed for too long to unfair foreign competition, but I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been more forthcoming about the reorganisation of marketing at home. No one can deny that it is an absolute vital necessity to reorganise this market.
When there was a precipitate fall in meat prices to the producer some time ago there was no corresponding fall in the price of meat in the shops. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, said that he thought that certain people in the industry were being unjustly blamed. But it was not only the importers of meat who did well out of this fall in price. Not for the first time, the subsidy went where it was not intended to go, and many people had a cut off the joint at that time which they ought not to have had—on the fringe of the industry, the middle men and even the butchers had an unfair cut off the joint.
I wish that the Minister had been more forthcoming about this. He said that he would wait for the Verdon Smith Report in the autumn—perhaps I should say in the fall. Why wait for that report? There has been an exhaustive investigation into the matter. The Lucas Committee went into it and made some admirable recommendations, including a commodity commission for meat—a commission made up of impartial people who would plan and co-ordinate home supplies and imports. That is exactly the policy which the Minister announced to the Committee today. Why should he wait until the autumn to establish a com-

modity commission to carry out the policy which he advocated today?
We are all concerned about the price of food, whether we represent urban or rural constituencies. Since the cost of distribution plays such an enormous part, a disproportionate part, in the cost of food, particularly of meat, I ask the Minister to tackle this matter now, without further delay. As has been pointed out, it can be only the Minister's decision. I hope that he will not pass the buck but will have on his desk a copy of that famous notice, "The buck stops here."
The building up and the structure of this great industry is not a matter of concern only for farmers or agricultural representatives in the House. We are always being told that farmers must face the economic facts of life. I think that the country must face the economic consequences of modifying or diminishing agricultural support. The subsidy is not there only to protect the farmer but also to protect consumers against high prices.
We must remember the value of agriculture to the national economy. In the last 10 years Britain's balance of payments has varied between a surplus of £328 million in 1958 to a deficit of £300 million in 1960. Between 1953 and 1961 home production of food rose by £349 million and food imports rose by £121 million. There was an interesting comment made on that in the article, which has already been quoted, by Mr. Rees-Mogg last Sunday. He drew some interesting conclusions from those figures. He said that had those proportions been reversed, as they probably would have been if the Government's policy had not been one of supporting agriculture, the cost to the balance of payments would not be running at over £200 million a year. He pointed out that on that basis we could seldom have hoped for a balance of payments surplus and possibly would have been unable to avoid devaluation. On that basis, the farm subsidies may in this period have been producing £1 of imports savings for every £1 of expenditure.
These are important conclusions. They are of concern not only to the farming community but they affect the country's economy. I am sure that we shall keep a vigilant eye on the progress of the negotiations which the Minister is to have with the National Farmers' Union, the


workers, the various trade organisations and foreign countries, because the value of agriculture and the contribution of the farmer, and the small farmer—do not let us underestimate his contribution—must be safeguarded. But in the last analysis the value of agriculture cannot be measured purely in financial terms. It has great social as well as economic implications for the nation.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), but I did not think that the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and other speeches by hon. Members opposite measured up to what I believe is the historic nature of this debate and the announcement made by the Minister. The policy of this country for over a hundred years has been one of virtually free importation of food. It is true that home farming has been protected to a large extent by the deficiency payments system, but the arrangements which it is proposed to make with exporting countries about food are a great departure from our historic principles, and I think that they are justified by the circumstances in which we live.
I shall be interested to hear the way in which the policies are worked out in detail. I hope that when it comes to working out the details the Minister will stick to the method which he outlined today—that the aim will be to cut off sudden increases in imports, dumped imports and excessive imports rather than to interfere with the basic volume of trade which I believe it to be necessary to continue in the interests of the rest of the country and which must be continued from the farming point of view, too, in respect of feedingstuffs for farm animals.
I was also glad that the Minister stressed that the purpose of the new policy is to enable the present system of deficiency payments to continue. In other words, it is not to replace the present system but to enable it to work with less burden for the taxpayer.
I hope that we shall hear from the Opposition in greater detail what their proposals are. I know that the Opposition always argue—and I think that I would argue in the same way if I were in Opposition—that they are not the Gov-

ernment and will not take risks by sticking out their necks and saying exactly what they would do. They have certainly not stuck out their necks to any extent today.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The Minister spoke about restricting the imports of foodstuffs. The hon. Member for King's Lynn is talking about the Opposition's policy. The Minister said that somebody took advantage of existing arrangements. Would the hon. Member tell us—because his right hon. Friend did not—against whom he is safeguarding the customer, the consumer, in this country?

Mr. Bullard: I am not sure that I follow the purpose of that intervention, which was almost as long as I intended to make my speech. I think that I had better carry on.
The Liberal Party has put down a Motion which I read with great interest advocating a managed market. I do not know what it means by that. Does it mean managed in the Common Market sense? I remind the hon. and learned Member on the Liberal benches, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), that he should define exactly what he means by this. It is essential to remember that the managed market conception demanded a stiff tariff to make it operate, and I think that neither the consumers nor the producers of this country are at all anxious to see the managed market conception introduced at present.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: If he does not wish to have a managed market, will the hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to reduce the subsidy bill and at the same time keep up the prices to the farmers?

Mr. Bullard: I do not think that I should go into those details. After all, it is not my Motion which was put on the Order Paper. I stand by this, for I do not believe that either the producers or consumers really want what the Liberals are proposing.
We have heard a good deal today from the hon. Member for Workington and the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen about commodity commissions. I am firmly convinced that this would be


the wrong method of attempting to control imports. Such bodies would be far too powerful and I believe that Parliament would not be prepared to give them the necessary powers to carry out their duties, including the licensing of exports, which would involve political decisions of the highest order. I do not believe That a body of supermen would be capable of running what would be a vast world trading organisation. For these reasons this idea is wholly fallacious and I am not particularly surprised that hon. Members opposite have not made a greater song and dance in favour of it, for it would be not only unworkable but a most unpopular proposition.
The right policy for Britain to pursue for the control of imports—a policy which has been shown to be necessary by past events—is that outlined by my right hon. Friend. He said that he wants in some cases to enter into price agreements with exporting countries and, in other cases, to employ a policy of minimum import prices; by which, I presume, he means that when a price falls below a certain fixed level either a duty or an embargo will come into operation. That is the method we should adopt.
I have certain misgivings about the concept of standard quantities for cereals and beef. I have no objection to the broad concept of standard quantities. It is advantageous to the Government to know roughly the quantities on which they will have to pay the deficiency payments. I do not believe that these standard quantities need be regarded by the producers as oppressive or that they would prevent them from expanding, because if they decided collectively to produce more than that provided for by the standard quantity they might, perhaps, take a lower world price for the remainder, but they would still be free to go on producing it. The system might have the effect of lowering the producers' prices generally. The producers cannot complain about that because they still have opportunity for ample expansion; with a guarantee behind them; that is, provided that the standard quantities are fixed in a reasonable way. Everything will depend on the way in which the standard quantities are operated.
In his speech today my right hon. Friend gave me what I regard as a very

adequate assurance about the intentions of the Government. I gathered from his remarks that it is certainly not intended to use the standard quantities to cut down the proportion of home production. My right hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of expanding home markets and he indicated quite clearly that it was the intention of the Government to allow the standard quantities to move in accordance with the size of the home market. It is essential that that should be done. The proposition for beef and cereals is somewhat different from that which applies to milk and eggs. The standard quantity for milk can be fixed rationally on the basis of the total home liquid consumption. There is some sense in that standard quantity.
When dealing with eggs, we are clearly in the position that the standard quantity becomes the total home production because we are producing virtually all the eggs we consume. Cereals and beef, on the other hand, are commodities which are produced essentially from the land itself. This is not a particularly good way to illustrate what I mean, but I hope that hon. Members are following what I am driving at. These commodities are produced as a result of the elementary principles of farming. They are produced in many parts of the country and are not to any extent produced as the result of imported primary products. It would be a serious matter if we were told that it is intended to limit the quantities of either of these commodities, the importation of which is now running at a fairly high level.
I suppose that it would be possible to adopt a system of import control which would have the effect of increasing the costs of feeding-stuffs at home. This would have the effect of raising the prices of various home produced commodities, but it would not increase the producers' prices because of the operation of the deficiency payments system. Such a system would not be regarded in a favourable light by the producers if they thought that an elaborate scheme for import control would be instituted where. by they would receive no benefit in terms of prices and would, at the same time, have to pay higher prices for their feeding-stuffs, so that only the Exchequer would benefit. I appreciate that the Exchequer has borne the brunt of the troubles that we have had in recent weeks


and months over beef prices, but my right hon. Friend must realise that the producer would like to think that, out of any import controls, he would receive some of the benefits. I hope that this will be borne in mind by the Government when standard commodities are fixed.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will refer to sugar. A great deal of sugar is produced in my constituency and in my part of the country generally and the present world price is extremely high. The world price is very high, and the producers have an idea that they would rather like to participate in some of this production. I hope that some reference will be made to this particular and very topical matter.
Horticulture, which has not so far been mentioned in this debate, is a very important part of our agricultural industry. It has been protected up to now by the tariff, and talk of the Kennedy round and the other means of tariff reduction—and, of course, the suggestion in past months that we might go into the Common Market—has caused horticulturists a great deal of uneasiness about the form of guarantee that we on this side of the Committee have always maintained should be the method of protection for horticulture. I believe that these fears have been justified, and I hope that now that my right hon. Friend is introducing a measure of import control he will not hold over the head of this industry some kind of threat that the horticultural tariffs may be modified, or even removed. I should like to hear some long-term assurance given to horticulture similar to that now being given to the agricultural industry.
Agriculture, of course, has the benefit of the deficiency payments which the horticulture industry does not enjoy, and such an assurance is due to it—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would not my hon. Friend agree that horticulture would probably welcome a system of minimum import prices perhaps even more than ordinary agriculture would, and is not one of the difficulties at present that, owing to the increasing spending power of the consumer, tariffs give less and less protection as the years go by?

Mr. Bullard: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says, and I hope

that some reference may be made to this matter at the conclusion of this debate.
I hope that I have made it clear that I give my wholehearted support to the measures my right hon. Friend has taken, and I look forward to his implementing in a liberal and generous way his decisions about standard quantities.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I remember being told by a missionary that it was better to semi-convert a man than to fail to convert him at all. In so far as that thesis is true, which is arguable, I suppose that the Liberal Party should be congratulating itself on semi-converting the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has today referred to the fact that the Liberals were in favour of a managed market. He was right—we do advocate a managed market for agriculture—but what the Minister has proposed today is a semi-managed market. That is to say, he agrees that the agricultural industry needs management, but it must not be full management but half-hearted management at the present time.
I have been amazed to find that this most important statement made by the Minister today, has been treated so gently by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, because it seems to me that in the Minister's speech there are the most tremendous implications for agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman stated, and I understand that this was the purpose of his introducing the policy, that it is the aim of the Government substantially to reduce the subsidy bill. At the same time, while chiding the Liberal Party for its advocacy of the managed market, he expressed concern for the consumers and said that he did not want the price to consumers to go up. There is only one other price left in this triangle, and that is the price received by the farmers.
If the subsidy bill is to be reduced, and if the price is not to go up for consumers, is not the only price that can be reduced the price received by the farmer for his products? The Minister has introduced this very cleverly, and I congratulate him. He certainly foxed the Opposition Front Bench, because this is an oblique attack on the prices obtainable


by the farmer at present. It is right that we should look at the Government's record in this matter. Over the past few years the subsidy bill has steadily gone up.
It is now at a very large figure, and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have quite rightly expressed concern. But the price of food to consumers in the shops has also gone up. At the same time, farmers' incomes, in real terms, have been reduced. In real terms, there has been only an overall increase of 11 per cent. in their incomes since the end of the war. Therefore, the Government have succeeded in doing three things. They have succeeded in increasing the subsidy bill, prices have increased in the shops and, in real terms, farmers' incomes have not kept pace with those of the rest of the community.
Today, we have the introduction of a principle that has further grave implications for agriculture—the idea of standard quantities for some commodities. If the Minister really came clean about it, he would admit that this really means restricting home production. There should be no illusions at all about that.
I understand from the Minister that there have not yet been any negotiations with anybody, but there will have to be negotiations with the Commonwealth producers, with our E.F.T.A. partners, and with our allies—the United States of America, for example, which has an enormous maize surplus. Thereafter, there will have to be negotiations with the National Farmers' Union. All these bodies will be scrambling for a share in our agricultural market.
Under this concept of standard quantities. what share is to be left to the British producer? Of one thing I am quite certain, and that is that the British producer's share will not be announced until after the next General Election—

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the Liberal Party does not approve the principle of standard quantities why, when we had an important debate on 2nd May from ten o'clock until towards midnight, was there not a single member of the Liberal Party in the Chamber?

Mr. Hooson: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) was in the Chamber on that day.
The result of this policy is that we shall reduce or curb our food production—as the Minister must admit if he comes clean.
What is the background to all this? This step is proposed when there is a world shortage of food. The Minister referred—inadvertently, perhaps—to a world food surplus. There is no such thing as a world food surplus. That is a myth, and it will remain a myth while hundreds of millions of people are short of food. We can only refer to surplus food production in the West, and the real problem is one of maldistribution of world food supplies. Our people have become more and more aware of this through the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, but what contribution are the Government making, what leadership are they showing? At a time when, through that campaign, we are being made aware of a world food shortage, the Minister is proposing that we should produce less food.
That really is an example of benevolent genius. A policy for food production, for agriculture, that virtually ignores the fact that half the world's population is short of food is entirely illiberal and utterly inadequate. We have the paradox of burgeoning surpluses in the food stores of the West and, at the same time, grinding poverty and lack of food over a great deal of the world's surface. Unless we solve this problem, we shall never really solve the British home agriculture problem. One of my chief criticisms of the Government is that they have done so little to begin to attempt to solve this problem.

Mr. Henry Clark: Could the hon. and learned Member suggest one agricultural product produced in this country which we could send to an under-developed country with a serious food problem with any hope that any economic trade would grow out of it? If we start to send food from this country at the cost of production here should we not be perpetuating world charity and inhibiting the production of food on the spot in the under-developed countries?

Mr. Hooson: I will come to that point in a minute. I suggest that the hon. Member should read Sir John Crawford's paper "Using Surpluses for


Economic Development", presented to the International Conference of Agricultural Economists in Mexico in 1961.
I will take the example of dried milk. Children in this country over the past 25 years have improved enormously in health, and if there is one single product responsible for this it is cheap milk. We should take the lead in this matter of Food for Peace. There is need for a sustained international campaign against hunger and malnutrition throughout the world. I suggest that our country, particularly as it is the greatest food importer, should take the lead. We have not backed the Food for Peace campaign which the United States Government put forward. At least we have done so only in an half-hearted way. There is a kind of benevolent indifference to this problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
I come to the point which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) made. It is suggested that it is impossible to provide food for backward countries, but the F.A.O. has prepared a successful plan to provide food as capital for the development of underdeveloped countries.

The Chairman: May I ask the hon. and learned Member under which Vote he is raising these matters?

Mr. Hanson: I was replying to an intervention, having given way to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I stand corrected and I will not pursue the point. I will answer the hon. Member privately.
The choice for advanced Western countries taken as a whole is either surplus food or a surplus capacity to produce food. It seems to me very much preferable to have surplus food in the West, which can be used sensibly in the rest of the world for the development of under-developed countries rather than that we should have surplus food-producing capacity. This is an international problem, but it is sad to see that our Government have not been in the vanguard in trying to solve it. Indeed, I cannot see that we can do more than postpone from year to year our own agricultural difficulties unless the West as a whole tackles the problem of surplus food production in the advanced countries.
International commodity agreements are needed. At least the National Farmers' Union has shown itself aware that this is a world food problem, but it is not enough for the Government to give lip service to the idea of international commodity agreements. A real attempt must be made to achieve them. I should like to know of a single attempt the Government have yet made. New Zealand, for example, has put forward a scheme for an international commodity agreement on butter. Are our Government supporting that, or not? It seems to me that Britain has a vital role to play in this matter because she is the largest food importing country.
We have come to the conclusion on these benches—[An HON. MEMBER:" These benches?"]—on this bench, shortly to become "benches", that nothing short of a managed market can solve our agricultural problem, because we are faced with a problem of Western food surpluses. Reference was made to the Government between 1945 and 1951, but, to be fair, there was then in the West an acute shortage of food and therefore the plans put forward in that era must be regarded in perspective in the light of that knowledge. But 33 per cent. of our subsidy bill now goes on cereals whereas they are responsible for only 21 per cent. of our total food production, and cereals and meat together are responsible for over half the projected subsidy bill.
We can tackle the problem of these commodities in this country at present only by having integrated planning of home food production and food imports. This is what we mean by having a managed market so that target prices are fixed and meat and grain supplies are controlled by a Commission, on the lines of the Common Market Commodity Commissions which the Minister was so warmly commending not long ago. These Commissions should also have powers as purchasers of last resort.

Mr. Soames: Could the hon. and learned Member say whether it is his policy that a managed market should operate in the way it operates in Europe, where the farmer gets his full return from the market, and that therefore there should be no deficiency payments, or is it his policy that our present system of


guaranteed prices and deficiency payments should remain in being?

Mr. Hooson: Eventually it is intended that the farmer should have his whole return from the market. This could not be done overnight. It would have to be done by phased stages. Perhaps the Minister has that in mind.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister has nothing in his mind.

Mr. Hooson: As for the farmer's position, it is obvious that because of the long-term nature of his investment he ought to be able to expect a reasonable return from the market. He should not be asked to compete with subsidised surpluses coming in from other countries and he should be protected from fluctuations in prices which can result sometimes from very small surpluses. These surpluses could be ironed out if we had a meat office and a grain office which could respectively store food and phase out the supply to the market.
Hon. Members who have referred to the need to improve marketing are quite right. Far too great a proportion of the price of food is added on to the price between the farm gate and the shop counter. I have to declare an interest. I have some experience of this matter. I am the chairman of a farmers' cooperative which has been engaged in selling meat. It has become quite apparent to me that there is great need for the co-ordination of imported supplies and home supplies of meat. The companies that do best in the wholesale meat supply of this country are those which also import a great deal of meat and therefore are able to phase out and coordinate their imported and home supplies of meat in the market.
One of my experiences over the last two years has been to realise that meat marketing is a specialised job which cannot be done easily by amateurs. I should not like to see the kind of corn-mission recommended in the Lucas Report; that is a bureaucratic body owning the product from the farm gate to its final destination. I believe that we should control the meat and cereal supply of the country under a commission of the kind that we on this bench propose.
May I come to one other matter, which greatly affects young farmers and small farmers in their efforts to improve their position? I refer to lack of capital. There is an old tradition in farming that capital is obtained largely from three sources—parsimony, patrimony and matrimony. It is said that the Scots favour parsimony, the English patrimony and the Welsh matrimony. Suffice it to say that these three sources of capital are not in themselves sufficient today, and the farming ladder is becoming increasingly difficult for the young man to ascend.
I should like to see more credit facilities available especially for young and small farmers who cannot improve their farming because they have not the capital available. For farm improvement schemes I should prefer to see loans at a reasonable fixed interest rate over 10 to 30 years rather than grants, because very often the grants go to those people who can afford to find the necessary money for their own improvements. For example, in the case of a one-third grant, the wealthy farmer can find the necessary two-thirds to enable him to obtain that grant. But the young farmer and the small farmer very often cannot find the necessary two-thirds in order to attract the one-third grant. It would be much better economically if they were granted a long-term loan at a fixed rate of interest.
In my view, the Minister has today announced a very important change in British agricultural policy the full implications of which have not yet become fully apparent. But one thing is certain: there will be a restriction on food production in this country, and that I abhor and oppose. Secondly, it is clear that if, as the Minister suggests, the subsidy bill is to be decreased to a significant extent and the price to the consumer is not to be increased, then the price to the farmer is bound to be reduced.

6.42 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: The farmers in my constituency are most depressed and dissatisfied at the state of our agricultural industry. They assure me that they cannot make a fair living and they do not see how they ever can in the foreseeable future under present conditions.
I know it is easy to quote facts and figures to prove that net farm income has been rising, that relative to the rest of the community their position has improved since before the war and that they do better than farmers in most other developed countries. This sort of political claptrap is like a red rag to a bull for them. The fact remains that times for them are extremely hard. They are making less and less money every year compared with so many who seem to be making more and more.
I have never known the farmers in my constituency to be so depressed at the conditions under which they have to try to earn their living. They cannot strike for more pay and less work, as we have seen in every other industry since the war. They, and they alone, have to work harder for less and less reward. They, and they alone, are not allowed a really fair standard of living compared with all the hard work that they have to put in under all circumstances.
In the dairy county of Cheshire the farmers would like to see full powers returned to the Milk Marketing Board so that a furl economic price may be charged to the consumers for their milk. Could not the Board deal with any surplus as it thought best for the industry? The dairy farmers cannot understand how there can be over-production of milk when milk products are imported on such a large scale.
With regard to dumping, although the President of the Board of Trade has complete powers to deal with the dumping of foreign food, action never seems to be taken sufficiently quickly or firmly. The damage is done long before the civil servants have filled in the necessary forms to prevent it. Prices tumble and the taxpayer has to provide extra support for the industry.
Further, is it not a fact that certain foreign products are aided by a hidden subsidy in the producer country? For instance, in the case of Danish bacon, after contracts have been agreed between the United Kingdom and Denmark, is not the price of pig feed in Denmark then adjusted by the Danish Government so as to give Danish producers a fair profit? If that is so, how on earth can British farmers compete under those conditiors?
The turnover of money in agriculture annually is greater than the combined agricultural output of Australia and New Zealand. It is greater than the combined turnover of British Railways and the National Coal Board. The British public are forced, by strike action and other means, to pay fair prices for all end products in those industries, such as railway fares, bus fares, coal that will not burn, electricity, gas and so on. Why should the British farmer not have the same treatment? Why cannot the British public pay a fair price for their food so that the farmers and farm workers can earn a fair standard of living? With reasonable protection and fair treatment, the British farmer would prefer to do without subsidies. It would save many millions of pounds each year to the Exchequer and, therefore, a saving in taxation. After all, other industries are protected.
Listen to the pathetic noises made by Lord Robens about the proposal for cheap imported coal or the reduction of the duty on fuel oil—"Give the coal industry a fair deal", "Give the miners a fair chance", and all that sort of thing. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear:I Hon. Members say "Hear, hear", but what about the British farmer? Why should he not be given a chance? What about the motor industry? American cars are not allowed into this country free of duty. Why?—to protect our own motor industry. What about the farmers? Why cannot we also protect them? The one party in which the farmers have always believed and trusted is the Tory Party. We must not let them dawn.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: As my name was taken to task earlier in the proceedings by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), I feel that I should first and foremost declare my interest. I am a farmer, farming slightly above the average. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West suggested that many of us here who are farmers have our eggs in other baskets and that, therefore, we do not require a fair income from farming. The only other basket that I have is the one that


I am in now, and in the last four years it has not proved very profitable.
Being a farmer, I agree entirely with nearly everything that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) has said. I hope that he will be able—he has not much time left—to get his party to give the fanners what they would like. The farmers in Cheshire are concerned mostly with milk production. I have gone out of milk on my farm in Scotland because I find arable farming more profitable. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will cast his mind back to the days of the war, he will remember that the late Lord Hudson took a hand in farming in Cheshire. He made the Cheshire farmers plough up considerably more than they were prepared to do, but they found it quite profitable to do so and still managed to keep their cows. They might well be able to go back to that system. Nowadays, one has the equipment to operate in wetter districts, and the Cheshire farmers, who might have had some excuse for their attitude in the days before combine harvesters, the extensive use of tractors, and so on, might do well to think again. If his own party will not help him, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take back to his constituents some advice from this side of the Committee.
The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said that the Opposition had not announced what they would do. It is not the Opposition's job to give the Government a policy. Under our Constitution, it is the job of the Opposition to oppose and criticise what the Government do. This is what we are doing today, and, I may say, the criticism is well deserved.
The Minister was quite right to emphasise that Britain's position is very different from that of most developed countries of the West. Nearly all those other countries feed themselves. Although they may import some luxury foods, nearly all the developed countries of the world produce their own basic foods. This applies to all the E.E.C. countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and so on. The Commonwealth, the United States and the Argentine, of course, are all exporters of food. It is most important, and I am glad that the Minister emphasised

this, that we should consider our agriculture carefully against this background of Britain having to buy half the food she needs.
There has been a lot of talk about this country exporting food. This is absolute nonsense. We cannot export food. We may export some livestock. Incidentally, I hope that the Minister has taken careful note of the memorandum which I sent to him the other day. If he had acted six or seven years ago, in accordance with the suggestions there, we should have had a market in Russia today for a considerable number of the Charolais cattle which they are buying from France this week.
People sometimes have very confused ideas about farming. Genuine farming is growing things and then using them either to produce milk, beef and so forth or for direct sale as farm produce. There is a tremendous difference between gross production and net production. Net production is the result of what one can grow and convert. Gross production is something quite different. A man could lay down an acre of cement, buy feeding-stuffs from abroad and produce stock in that way, but that is only gross production, and the net production from the country's point of view is nil. We should remember this when we talk about exporting farm produce. We could, of course, buy enormous quantities of feedingstuffs from abroad and then export the produce, but that is not net production. That is gross production, and it gets us nowhere.
What should be our objectives against the background I have set? We are an industrial nation with an enormous population. When the Minister mentioned a total of 70 million in a few years, I thought I heard someone gasp and say, "God forbid, on this small island". Nevertheless, we have an enormous industrial population to feed, and our first objective must be to keep prices at a reasonable level while still maintaining a prosperous agriculture, ensuring to farmers and workers at least reasonable parity with commercial and industrial incomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West spoke about the incomes of farmers, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West suggested that I did not look like one of the threadbare people my hon. Friend was talking about. It is essential to realise that a farmer farming 500 acres must have a bigger


income than a man farming 50 acres. It is ridiculous to suggest that all farmers should be on the same level. If we are to maintain the man with 50 acres or less, there is a very strong argument for doing something for him.
I should like to see farm workers have parity with industrial workers, but there is too much loose talk about the nominal value of perquisites, farm workers' houses, and so on. My biggest job during the past five or six years has been to provide garages for farm workers' cars and then pay the rates on them as soon as the local authorities found out that we had put them up. Again, as regards houses, if one advertises a job without a house there are very few applicants. Advertise it with a house, and the applications come.
As regards evictions, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend when he speaks of people being evicted without somewhere else to go. But this applies everywhere. Why pick on the houses of farm workers? Council house tenants are evicted. All sorts of people are evicted. Sometimes houses are pulled down for some purpose or other and people have to go. The principle should be that people in general should not be evicted without somewhere to go. Why pick on farm workers?
My second objective is to help the balance of payments by the efficient production of commodities which will do this. The more we succeed, the more shall we help the world pool of food to help feed the hungry. Our object in this country should be to produce as much as possible so that we do not have to import more than is necessary for ourselves, thus helping the world food situation.
My third objective is to maintain, in the interests of world trade, a market of our traditional suppliers of food with whom we wish to expand trade for our urban industries. We must maintain this connection because we require it in order to be able to buy at least half the food we need.
My fourth objective—I think that everyone agrees with this—is to make somehow a considerable effort to reduce Government expenditure on agricultural support. This is not easy. There is bound to be a considerable amount of rationalisation in the industry and in

our marketing arrangements. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) made a very good point about how much can be done by efficient marketing arrangements.
I put this point to the Committee about the idea that subsidies actually keep down prices. I have never subscribed to this theory. I have argued about it before with the right hon. Gentleman. They did during the war and up to 1952, but since world prices came below our guaranteed prices the situation has been quite different. I am convinced that with a slow reduction in the subsidy to farmers food prices would not rise above prevailing world prices. Even if we had a drop of £300 million or £400 million in our agricultural production, this would not, I think, embarrass the world producers of food, we buy from to-day. Two days ago, one read in The Times of American efforts to reduce the enormous stocks of wheat which they hold. Canada has 300,000 tons of butter. Speaking in terms of the pure economics of food production, I am certain that this would not be so. The case for helping and supporting the British farmer is the simple one of saving on our balance of payments. The article in The Times a week ago hit the nail on the head, as did the extract from the Report of the N.E.D.C., which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr Peart) read in his opening speech.
There is a tremendous case to be made for a saving of world exchange. Since the war, we have made no headway in improving our balance of payments. This is the way to do it, and it is the strongest argument we have for supporting British agriculture while, at the same time, helping world food supplies.
I admit that some of the four objectives I have mentioned conflict with one another. I have mentioned keeping prices down, maintaining a prosperous industry and giving less, support. They all conflict with one another. But this is our difficulty, and it is the job of the Government to reconcile these conflicting factors. The Government are doing their best, although it may be a poor best. We must strike a balance which is fair to the farming community and yet gives greater benefit to the country as a whole. I hope that whatever else we do we do not


make this a farming vote catcher at the next election.
May I say a few words on the structure of the industry? I think some people are a little mixed up in their figures. I have the official figures here. In the last ten years, the number of holdings has reduced by 57,500. I do not think that that is the true figure in the accepted sense because many of those holdings were probably farmed by one fanner which, having been amalgamated, appear as one in the returns. The number of people who have gone out of the industry in the last ten years is just over 200,000. Some hon. Members opposite admit that that is the way they like it. One hon. Member opposite said that this was just evolution I suppose the fact that we have I million unemployed and had 3 million unemployed before the war was evolution, too. We do not believe that that need happen with some control.
We do not know what heartbreak there have been among the people concerned with the 57,000 holdings which have gone out of action. Many of these people have gone out of the business through economic pressure, and we do not believe in that. I am worried not so much about people going out of the business as the way in which they go out. We must have some sensible and humane system of the voluntary amalgamation of farms, and only the Government can give a lead in this. We on this side will ensure that that lead is given when we come to power.
I come to what has been the main theme in the debate, namely, the Minister's announcement that at long last the Conservative Party realises that it must bring some control into this great industry. I should have liked the Minister to say a little more about the exact plans that he has in mind. Perhaps he did not have time to do so. Therefore, we should be fair and hope that he will tell us what his exact plans are in the near future. There is no doubt, however, that if he feels that he has no alternative but to raise the price and not the quantity, then he is in for a nasty time, because any suggestion that we should control imports by raising the price would not be tolerated.
I suggest that we have to do much more than control imports. An hon. Member opposite told us how he would deal with surpluses and how he would have buffer stocks. We must have buffer stocks, because during the bad weather like we had last year and the beginning of this year we cannot get feeding stuffs abroad at a moment's notice. Who will control these buffer stocks? Who will provide the capital for them? There is a host of things like this to be decided and they cannot be decided on the basis of controlling imports only. The Minister will have to take a look at commodity commissions and at the Lucas Report. These commodity commissions must have considerable powers before the control of imports can be a success.
I should like to say a few words on the question of guarantees for potatoes. I have tackled the Minister about this before. Potatoes are the one commodity of which we can produce all we need. We can produce all the shell eggs we need. But we do not produce anything like the amount of liquid and dried egg that we need, and this we have to import. We produce liquid and manufactured milk, but the amount of cheese and butter which we import is tremendous. Apart from a few early potatoes which we import and which we do not need—they are purely a luxury—we can produce all the potatoes we need throughout the year.
In the last four or five years, there has been a scarcity of potatoes. I do not know what will happen this year, but probably the price will go up again because the earlies will be very late, and the price to the consumer will probably be excessive. Farmers will not plant the acres of potatoes which the Potato Board wants without a better guarantee. The present guarantee is worked out on the basis of paying to the Board the difference between the price of the potatoes and the price which the farmer gets over the amount which goes for human consumption. If there is a surplus, that price must be used to put a floor in the market. We all know that the surplus price of potatoes is so much lower than the guaranteed price that all that money is immediately taken up. If the Potato Board had the same power as the Milk Board and if all potatoes went through the Board and


then went to the merchants at a fixed price, the housewife would get a decent supply of potatoes at a reasonable price, whether there was a scarcity or not. The housewife does not begrudge 3½. to 4d. a lb., which gives a retail price of over £30 a ton and the farmers a price of £14 or £15, with which they would be satisfied if it were guaranteed to them. But often they have had to take £10 or less. The Potato Board will not operate properly unless it is given power to do that.
We have heard a great deal about world trade agreements, adapting to new conditions and a policy for large as well as small farmers. All of this must be done. This is not an easy problem, but it must be solved. It will not be solved if the Government continue to fall over backwards to give what they call "the maximum freedom" to the trade in carrying out their policies. The Minister said that he was against unbridled competition. He cannot have it both ways. That is why the present policy has failed. It was produced in order to give maximum freedom, and that is why it has failed. We should work out the policy, decide on the best way to implement it and then try to give the maximum freedom. The Government do it the other way round. They give the maximum freedom first. Therefore, their policy will continue to fail. They will make the same mistake again if the Minister carries out the policy of giving maximum freedom along with control over imports. Fortunately, he will not have very long to carry out that policy.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I agree with the reasons which the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) gave for the maintaining of a prosperous agriculture in this country. It used to be claimed that, perhaps, the most important factor was the strategic one. I do not believe that that is so any longer. I do not write off its importance altogether, but I believe that a prosperous agriculture is important to this country because of the contribution which it makes to the balance of payments and because of the tremendous market which it provides for the products of the factories of British industry. If agriculture were allowed to decline, industry would find that a very

good and valuable customer had gone. Those are the important factors which I think dictate the proposition that agricultural prosperity and industrial prosperity are complementary one to the other. If one goes into decline, the other will suffer as well.
The subjects of import control and standard quantities have been commented upon fairly thoroughly and I should like to turn to the prospects of growth in home agricultural production in the years ahead. Two things are necessary, both of them being within the grasp of the industry, if we are to increase our share of the home market.
The first need is for better management within the industry. A tremendous amount has been achieved and I pay tribute to the benefit which the farming industry has derived, particularly since the war, from a great deal of new blood which has come into farming from outside, bringing with it a considerable number of good new ideas and minds which have been free from dogmatic, traditional ideas and ready to experiment and to give a lead in pioneering. They have been of immense advantage to farming.
The results of good management within the industry as a whole may be shown by two items which I extracted from my cash book at the end of last week. It is interesting to reflect that the price of barley which I received last autumn was precisely the same as it was in 1955. Whereas in 1955 the price of wheat was £33 per ton, the price of the last crop—I am, of course, including support payments—was £26 5s. Few industries, if any, have held their prices at the 1955 level and far fewer industries are receiving lower prices than seven years ago.
That a tremendous amount of work has still to he done is borne out by the immense variations in the profits of farms in different sectors of the industry. According to figures issued not many years ago by the Edinburgh School of Agriculture, arable farms showed a profit of £8 an acre as a result of what was described as average management and £12 an acre where the management was good.

Mr. Ross: What size of farm?

Mr. Stodart: The sizes were strictly comparable between the two groups. I


was told not long ago by a man in Scotland who is the leading authority on the management of pigs that he could show me two sets of farm buildings. In one of these the pig unit was making a net profit of £40 per sow whereas the other, less than half a mile away, was making a loss. Although in dairy or arable farming it can be said that one field or farm has poor and unhelpful land, nothing but good management can dictate the financial results of a pig unit.
I noticed in the Scotsman on Saturday an article by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State giving two examples concerning hill sheep and describing the results on one hirsel as showing a loss of 10s. per ewe and the other, not far away, showing a profit of 30s. Whether one of those was my right hon. Friend's—and, if so, which one—I will not be so indiscreet as to inquire.
I should like to pay great tribute to those in the National Agricultural Advisory Service in England and Wales and to all the advisers attached to the agricultural colleges in Scotland for the work they have been doing in making farmers accounts conscious. There was a time when farmers used to be furtive about their profits.

Mr. E. G. Willis: They still are.

Mr. Stodart: I would not go so far as to say that they had entirely cured their modesty, but it is now common practice, largely as a result of the work of the advisory service, for farmers to publish complete financial results. This is of great benefit educationally to their neighbours in enabling them to find out where their own weakness lies. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is a sector of the advisory service which might with great usefulness and advantage be expanded. Furthermore, I see no reason why farmers should not pay a share of the cost of getting that kind of advice. I make no bones about saying that I would willingly pay a substantial fee if I were to have a loss on my farm turned into a handsome profit.
The second direction in which much work has still to be done is better marketing. This is a subject in which the industry has been slow in dealing with what is virtually its Achilles heel.

Wonderful work has been done in production, but we have been slow in putting our house in order in the way of marketing.
Within recent years, there have been amalgamations and take-overs among those buy our produce. I am certain that farmers must amalgamate and cooperate and must reduce costs to the greatest conceivable extent from the farm to the counter. This is particularly relevant in the marketing of meat. Meat marketing is a subject which generates a great deal of warmth because the vast majority of our meat finds its way to the auction marts, where it is then sold on the hoof.
There is no question that the livestock auctioneers have been good friends to farmers for a long time, but it is not the job of an auctioneer primarily to give the farming industry credit or to lend it money. The fact that auctioneers have done this, and continue to do so, should not deflect us from a dispassionate appraisal of the whole livestock auctioneering system. I have sold fat cattle and sheep for a long time in the marts and I confess that I have liked doing it. I have enjoyed now and again seeing a buyer come back for my beasts a second week running, because I assumed he had been satisfied. Added to which, of course, farmers love going to marts in order to see their friends and hear what is going on—

Mr. Willis: And to see all their Jaguars and all that.

Mr. Stodart: —but I have never, I think, deluded myself into thinking that this system formed a very efficient link in the chain of distribution. If we think of the transport to the mart, of the animals standing about, at the best for quite a few hours, in all weathers, and then going through the ring—a ring in which there is complete uncertainty of the numbers which are going to be supplied and the utter chanciness of the place in the sale which one will draw by ballot—and then of the transport of the animals away from the auction mart to the slaughterhouse, then no one really can possibly claim that this is an efficient system of distribution.
I have asked myself two questions. Why have broilers made such inroads into the meat market within the last few


years? We must remember that the broilers, which have enjoyed no subsidy whatever, have been so competitive that the consumption of poultry meat in this country has gone up to double what it was in 1956, and one reason for that is surely a first-class marketing system. They are net double handled they do not draw lots in the sale; they go through a specialised processing centre.

Mr. Mackie: But will not the hon. Gentleman agree that they get the advantage of cheap feedingstuffs through subsidy—they get the advantage of the fertiliser subsidy, and things like that—so that it is not altogether true that they do not get anything from support?

Mr. Stodart: Surely cattle and sheep get precisely the same advantages? Therefore, I think that the broilers' competitiveness lies in the efficiency of marketing which has in fact put them ahead.
Secondly, how is it that lamb from New Zealand can come on to our market as competitively as it does? Of course, the New Zealanders produce it in wonderful climatic conditions, but at what a distance away from the London market. Yet the costs from a farm in New Zealand to Smithfield Market in London are no more than the costs from a farm in Scotland to Smithfield. Of course, there is sea transport versus rail, and that makes quite a difference in costs, but a very important factor is that in New Zealand there is no double handling of fatstock, for the very good reason that they have come to the conclusion that they cannot afford to do it. They grade nearly everything on the hoof, compared with only about one-quarter of our fat-stock which is handled in that way.
We have got here, in our meat, an asset of very high quality indeed. It enjoys a high reputation backed by a considerable tradition of excellence, and I think that the future for meat production in this country is very bright, provided that farmers will not allow themselves to be duped by such nonsensical utterances as we have had in recent weeks about flavour not mattering in the least.
I personally was one who regretted the failure of the Common Market negotiations. I have always believed that really keen production costs plus first-class salesmanship would take a lot of our meat into Europe. We are so often

told in rather general terms that the French never have been eaters of mutton. If New Zealand can build up a considerable trade in selling ewe mutton to the Japanese—of all unlikely commodities to sell to all unlikely people—I should have thought that there would be little difficulty in our selling our quality stock to the people of Europe.
I am certain that the revolution in agriculture over the next decade will not take place so much in the fields as it will in the orbit of marketing, and if that revolution is as spectacular as it has been in the fields since the war, then I believe that our costs of distribution will have been lowered to such an extent that a very great expansion in production in this country will easily be within our grasp.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I should like, first, to deal with the question which has been so often prompted from the other side of the Committee, namely, what is the policy of the Labour Party. Let me explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the very basis of any decent economy in British agriculture, the foundation of it, was laid by the Labour Government in 1947. We proved beyond any shadow of doubt what could be done when agriculture was put on a decent basis. Indeed, I was surprised at some hon. Members opposite wanting to know what was our policy and then confessing that they did not know what the Minister had said this afternoon. They would do better to direct their attention to finding out what the Minister had to say, or what he meant by what he said.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West said something with which I agree, that industry and agriculture are complementary to each other; it is so obvious that the success of the economy of each is dependent upon that of the other, either as supplier or customer; and this is true. I do not altogether agree with him in the comparison which he used, that the price of barley remained steady for so many years. It may be that it did. I do not know how the subsidies moved. All I can say is that, according to the latest Estimates—and I do not want to make too great a point of it—and if these are correct, the


barley subsidy was £34·8 million in 1962–63 and is raised to £38·4 million for next year, 1963–64. So while the price may not have risen, perhaps, for the consumer or supplier, at least it will cost the Government—the taxpayer—some £4 million more.
There are two immediate questions I want to raise. I am surprised that only one was touched on, and that very briefly indeed, by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman said that he would like to know the Government's view about the current price of sugar. The price of this commodity has shot up to an all-time record during the last few weeks, and it is therefore extraordinary that nothing has been said about it in this debate. After all, earlier this year during our discussions on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now an Act, the Government said that they had entered into negotiations with the Irish Sugar Company as a result of which thousands of £s were involved. It is interesting to recall that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said then that
the world price of sugar has risen to a startling extent…".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee E, 31st January, 1963; c. 386.]
The price was then £40 a ton. Today it is nearly £100 a ton, with appalling consequences not only for the housewife but for many industries, because sugar is the basis of the chocolate industry, the confectionery industry and to a lesser degree the aerated mineral industry on whose products the Government imposed a 15 per cent. tax some years ago. What are the Government doing about this state of affairs? They cannot just wash their hands of the whole affair and continue to allow these extortionate prices to be charged.

Mr. John Farr: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the good things the Government could do in this connection would be to remove the acreage quota for sugar beet growers at once?

Mr. Hoy: That may well be an argument for increasing our sugar production by growing more sugar beet. I am saying that we have reached the point at which we are having to pay nearly £100 per Ion. Even if we had an increased acreage

for the growing of sugar beet it would not have much effect on the extortionate prices that we are having to pay. We need quick action to provide some benefit for both the home and the industrial consumer.

Mr. George Jeger: Does my hon. Friend recall that there was a time when Mr. Cube, in alliance with the party opposite, paid for the arvertisements saying that they would mend the hole in the purse?

Mr. Hoy: I did not want to take up too much of the Committee's time, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the campaign run by Messrs. Tate and Lyle in the name of Mr. Cube, but that campaign has been effectively disposed of by tonight's Evening Standard, which points out that the cubes of sugar are disappearing through the ceiling at the price that housewives are having to pay. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Gentleman, who appears in a Christian programme, would either hold his tongue or get up and say what he wants to say.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) raised the subject of Messrs. Tate and Lyle and said that the company's activities were related to the increased prices. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is the policy of his party to nationalise this industry?

Mr. Hoy: Of all the most inconsequential interruptions, that is the worst that I have heard. If, after having been in the Chamber for about two minutes, that is the best contribution the hon. Gentleman can make, it would be better if he were to take himself out of the Chamber again.
I turn now to the question which I raised earlier this year, the level that potato prices are likely to reach. The Secretary of State for Scotland will remember that in introducing the prices under the Agricultural Price Review the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated that through the Potato Marketing Board he expected 700,000 acres to meet our needs. There is a feeling in the industry that this acreage will not be sufficient, and that the price of potatoes will rise considerably. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite recollect


the tremendous increase in prices last year when housewives were held to ransom. We therefore want some assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland tonight that action will be taken now to ensure that a similar shortage does not occur again, with the consequential increase in prices that is sure to follow.
This has been an unusual debate in many ways. In the earlier part of it my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) spoke of the difficulties that farmers were enduring. This was immediately objected to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who said that the farmers were doing all right.
I prefer the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), to which I shall refer later. One of the problems with which we are confronted is a considerable fall in the numbers in agricultural employment. Since 1929 the number of agricultural workers in Scotland has decreased by about 27,000. I am prepared to admit that the tremendous mechanisation which has taken place in the industry has accounted for a considerable part of this decrease, but if we compare the figure for last year with that for 1961, we see that it fell from 65,600 to 62,100, a fall of about 5·3 per cent. No one can argue that this fall was caused by further modernisation of the farms, and if we examine the figures of part-time and casual workers, we see that the fall was even more marked.
From the employment point of view this is extremely bad for Scotland. It means that thousands of people are leaving the land, and there must be a reason for it. This is where I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. I think that a great deal of the trouble is due to the extremely low wages paid to agricultural workers compared with those paid to the rest of the community. My hon. Friend seemed to think that his main job was providing garages for the cars of his agricultural workers. I assure him that this is not the position in Scotland, because the highest wage, that paid to grieves, is 237s. while the general worker receives 194s. These are gross wages and no

one can suggest that they are an over-payment for the work being done.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) had referred to the bicycles of agricultural workers in Scotland, he would have been much nearer the mark.

Mr. Hoy: I could not agree more. The figures that I have given are those of the total earnings, including overtime and perquisites. These are the figures returned by the Department, so I think we can assume that they are accurate. How can we hope to retain the best men and their families on the land if this is the best that the industry can offer? The decrease in the number of agricultural workers is to a large extent due to the low wages which they are able to earn.

Mr. Stodart: I accept that possibly the rush of mechanisation is past, but from the figures which are available showing the amount of money spent on farm improvement grants, and from my own experience, I believe that a substantial proportion of the reduction to which the hon. Gentleman referred is still due to the mechanisation which is taking place.

Mr. Hoy: I have stated that mechanisation has a great deal to do with especially when we compare the numbers with the pre-war figures. Even the hon. Gentleman will not suggest that at least the very substantial reduction which took place last year was through the increase in mechanisation.
I am arguing that part of it may very well be due, and is due, to lower total earnings as compared with the rest of the community. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that one thing which has gone up substantially, and which was the greatest cost to farmers last year, was increased rent, which went up by a further 8 per cent. That is one of the things that the landowners and farmers might get together about, and then perhaps they can sort out these continual increases in rent which make it so costly for the farmer.
The right hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of his speech, said that he had come to the conclusion—hon. Members who were present will remember that he did it with great fervour, as if, in fact,


he had made some discovery—that we have to have import controls. He said that this is the answer to it. We have had to carry such a tremendous burden because of the deficiency payment system that we have to introduce import controls. He said it as if it were something new. May 1 remind the Committee—I do not claim it all for myself—that even when he was making his statement on the Agriculture Price Review I asked him whether he intended to introduce a system of import levies or import controls. Indeed, I also suggested to him at that time that in addition to these he might also be prepared to consider commodity marketing arrangements.
These were the things which the right hon. Gentleman was calling for this afternoon, but I am certain that it must be in the recollection of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that this was asked for a long time ago. What hon. Members opposite ought to have been doing was to complain to the right hon. Gentleman that he had taken so long to make up his mind about it. Having made this intimation there is not one Member of the Committee who knows when he will pat this intention into practice, or with whom he will discuss it. He merely made this bald statement, left it at that, and the Committee is no better off. I thought that he took a back-handed swipe at the farmers, too.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West talking about the trials and tribulations of taking cattle to market. The Minister said that the farmers paid too much attention to the attraction of subsidies and not to market prices. He was thinking the other way round. In other words, the subsidies were being used for the farmer, who says, "What does the market price matter so long as I get the subsidy to bring the figure up to the price that I am guaranteed to get? "This indeed calls for some important changes.
I should like an explanation about this. The Minister said that we must perhaps aim at standard quantities of meat. What does he mean by standard quantities? This can be very important especially in Scotland. Tonight the House will be discussing certain Orders for increasing production. This is the

very complaint that the agricultural community is always making. First, we shall use these orders to increase production, to encourage output, but the Minister talked about standard quantities of meat which might well mean restriction. This is the sort of indecision that the agricultural industry is always protesting against, and it will be the job of the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain quite clearly what is meant by standard quantities of meat, because, as an hon. Member opposite said, this is of supreme importance to Scotland, and especially to the farmers in the uplands who are finding it in many ways difficult enough. We shall have to have the reason for it. We shall have to understand what the Minister means because unless the industry knows what it means, it will be left in this indecisive position.
It makes a change for the Minister to talk about international commodity agreements and guaranteed prices. My mind went back to the early days of the Labour Government when we were making these agreements with the Commonwealth and how they were attacked by hon. Members who are now sitting on the other side of the Committee. What nonsense, they said, it was to enter into these agreements. In fact this is perhaps the important part of the answer to the problems which confront the industry. I hope that the Minister will have something more to say about it tonight.
I want, finally, to say something about marketing which is so important. This apparently has appealed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. There has been a series of articles in the Scotsman on the agricultural industry. While perhaps not agreeing with them or asking everyone to agree with them, at least they have been very provoking and have stimulated a great deal of thought. It said in an article on 1st April:
After all, 80 per cent. of the price subsidies are at present paid out on fatstock and cereals, the two commodity groups in which no boards exist and in which free-for-all marketing has proved unacceptable.
I think it states quite clearly and bluntly, without argument at all, that if we are to get out of this state we have to have marketing arrangements. If it wants support it has had it from the Secretary of State for Scotland,


whose article appeared in the Scotsman on Monday. He said:
For instance why do we bring so much of our food to London, to Smithfield, Covent Garden and Billingsgate, where it is handled. broken up and then whistled away back to York or wherever it came from. Surely this cannot he said to be an efficient method. I was in Holland recently and they lust laughed at our methods of marketing vegetables. I believe this whole process of marketing, particularly of perishables, is desperately important to both farmer and housewife and that is why everybody is awaiting with such interest for the Verdon Smith Committee's report on meat marketing.
If these continentals are laughing at us, there is some responsibility on the Government for not having taken measures to bring in effective marketing schemes. They cannot absolve themselves from the blame, and if the Secretary of State for Scotland admits, as he does in this article in the Scotsman, that it is so bad that we are entitled to be laughed at, he and his party ought to be ashamed of the fact that they have taken no action to correct it. If at last the Secretary of State realises that it is along this road that we shall have to travel, not only for the benefit of the farmers, who are awfully important men, but also for the farm workers, and not least for the consumers, who are entitled to expect a reasonable price, we shall have gone a fair way along the road. But I do not think that he will have the opportunity of putting it right. It will fall to my hon. Friends to carry out that change.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I do not think that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee could follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) in a great deal of what he said, but I want to add a few words about what he said about marketing, because that was one of the most important parts of his speech. There is already a quite adequate system of marketing on the hook if the farmers want to make use of it. Is it the policy of hon. Members opposite to go all out to hit the auctioneers and the auction markets hard and put them out of business? However inefficient the system of selling in the market may be for fatstock, it is essential to the movement of stores and the store trade generally. Where would the north of Scotland be if it were not for the store trade and store markets

clearing out the whole of the lamb crop from the Highlands?
I agree with what the hon. Member said about sugar. I hope that the Minister will study carefully the possibility of increasing sugar acreages for next season. But the hon. Member wants to take the weather out of farming altogether, judging by what he said about potatoes. Of course, this will be a difficult year for potatoes; the weather could not have been more adverse for the production of this commodity. He asked for a practical example to show that farmers could derive any confidence and feel any sense of security as a result of what the Minister said. I can give him one straight away. As soon as the Minister announced the quotas on the import of Argentine and Jugoslav meat the price of fat cattle started to rise, because it meant that the market was no longer threatened by unlimited meat imports from those countries. That is one practical example showing that the Minister's speech today gives us confidence and hope that we will achieve the extra stability that is required in the agriculture industry.
Since the end of the war both parties have been trying to find a way to give our farmers the stability they need. The 1957 Agriculture Act was a great step in this direction, but it had two weaknesses. The first was the tremendous demand on the Exchequer for unlimited liability because of cheap imports, and the other was the weak home markets, with the price dropping on the home market in many cases because of oversupply. The complaint of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was that the period up to the end of the Brussels negotiations had left the agriculture industry in some doubt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, this has been an unhappy period in the countryside. But I am not certain that it has been entirely a bad and unconstructive period. It has given us all a chance to look at our present agriculture policy. Many ideas have been put forward. People have said that we must take the Lucas Committee off the shelf. From what has been said today it is clear that hon. Members opposite are firmly wedded to the idea of commodity commissions.

Mr. Pearl: The hon. Member must not misrepresent what I said. The commodity commissions that I referred to were quite different from those mentioned in the Lucas Report. If the hon. Member has read the Lucas Report he will know that that is so.

Mr. Kimball: There must be a difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Workington and his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie)—my distinguished constituent. In this period of reappraisal there has been a strong canvass in many places for a return to the 1932 Wheat Act. Throughout all this period of uncertainty and unsettlement there has been a lurking fear that our position as the world's largest food importing country may be exploited as a bargaining counter to stimulate exports.
The matter was crystallised just before the Price Review by an article in The Times which highlighted the exact position and showed where the runaway elements were in our present deficiency payments system. As the Minister said, the bulk of the money at the moment is going in cereals and meat. We must not consider the latter in isolation, but must look at them against the background of a vast supply of cheap poultry, turkeys and ducks coming into this country. An equally important factor is the need to replace the timing of the New Zealand lamb crop as it now comes into this country.
All my hon. Friends would agree that these are the three weaknesses in the 1957 Agriculture Act. Having pointed them out and accepted them, and agreed that what my right hon. Friend has said today is the right way to deal with them, let us consider the 1957 Act—which nobody seems to have done—and see what a splendid piece of agricultural support it gives us. It is the envy of all the other European countries. That is common knowledge. Everybody in Brussels who was able to understand our system said that if only he could get away with it politically their life would be a great deal easier. I am not impressed by all these semi-trick statistics about farm income that are put up. I do not believe that they affect the prosperity and the feeling of security that now exists in the countryside. Every farmer I meet talks about expanding. The normal philo-

sophy of farmers nowadays is bound up with the question of where they can get more land so as to increase their enterprise. Mention has already been made of the terrific price of grasskeeping this year, and the high prices of farms let by tender and for sale. During the debate hon. Members opposite have made much of the fall in the number of people farming today. The hon. Member for Enfield, East, whom we all know to be a successful and practical farmer, ought to have been honest in his remarks and admitted that in these days retiring farmers usually say that they have been offered such a good price for their land, and that they had reached the age at which they did not want to work too hard, that they thought it would be a good moment to retire. The good price being paid for what they have invested has encouraged many people to retire.
I thought that we might have had some constructive ideas from hon. Members opposite, but we have had nothing so far. I thought that we might hear something of their ideas about the way in which amalgamations and increases in holdings could be made easier, and how the hardship that often exists could be taken away, but nothing constructive has come from them. Nothing has been said about the important part played in this process by the normal landlord-tenant relationship, and by the proper reorganisation of estates into economic units.
I want to dwell in some detail on two main points that my right hon. Friend made in connection with the question of the practical control on imports. There is no doubt about the success of the two negotiations that the Minister has just concluded with the Argentine and Jugoslav Governments. We have seen the practical reflection of that in the increased price of meat in the markets in the last three weeks. If we are to have any control over cattle and meat imports it must be by numbers and not by price. Alternatively, in the matter of cereal marketing, I do not think that anybody would deny the great success of the ex-port of entry price agreement that we have had for barley. It was a difficult thing to explain to the Russians that they could not sell us barley at £14 a ton. but had to sell it to us at £20 a ton, in order to protect our barley market.
The hon. Member for Leith asked why the subsidy had been increased. It has been increased because the acreage has been increased, together with production, while the price has remained incredibly steady. The striking example that we have had of the success of the control of cereal imports, as applied to the import of Russian barley will, I hope, persuade my right hon. Friend to proceed in the same way with control of the other grain imports, by price rather than quantity.
I feel absolutely confident that we have had from the Minister of Agriculture a statement of policy that will give us the security and stability needed in the industry. It will give us that final rounding off of the position established by the 1957 Act. We may see when we open our papers a picture of the hon. Member for Workington trying to thumb a lift on our agricultural policy. That is about all we shall see from hon. Gentlement opposite, because we have certainly heard no alternative policy from them. I am confident that the speech of my right hon. Friend will result in a vastly increased majority for those of us on this side of the Committee who represent agricultural constituencies.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: One could comment at some length on the speech of the hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball). But the speech of the Minister, important as it was, requires examination before one can comment upon it. Most hon. Members who have discussed it have done so on the basis of hypothetical detail which they themselves provided because the Minister himself said that he could not yet give details. They have to be worked out. Hon. Members provided the details and nothing which they discussed was disclosed by the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was trying to prevent the import of uneconomic foodstuffs which would depress the market prices. I think much of the fault may be found in sections of the industry. The Minister was right in saying that one of the causes of discontent is the lack of supplies to the market. We know that if the supply of meat to the meat market had been properly phased, and the meat had arrived at the proper time, the

large subsidy payments for meat would not have been required. But until we get the details of the right hon. Gentleman's plan it is useless to try to discuss it.
I agree with the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) who discussed the cost of the distribution of foodstuffs which is astronomical. The difference between the price received by the farmer and the price which the housewife has to pay needs a great deal of examination. The system of distribution as well as marketing may be complicated. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) told the Committee what happened to his cattle when he sold them, and be described the manner in which they were transported from the market. All my cattle go to the Fatstock Marketing Corporation. The Corporation sends a lorry to the farm to pick up the stock which is taken to the slaughterhouse, where it is weighed on the hoof and payment made for weight and quality. There is no waste and no loss. The wasteful system of marketing referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is extravagant and unnecessary.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Gainsborough said about the store market. That is an entirely different market from the fatstock market. It gathers the store stock from different farms and the stock is ready for distribution. The stock has to be distributed to be finished and fattened. But fatstock can be taken from the farm to the slaughterhouse, and that is what ought to take place.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: My hon. Friend has referred to a crucial point about the distribution of fatstock. Would he agree that part of the necessary reforms is a rearrangement of the slaughtering arrangements on a district and regional basis?

Mr. Kenyon: Certainly. The slaughtering arrangements built up by the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation should be expanded in order to cut out the mileage covered by transport.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. East, (Mr. Mackie) who said that we are self-sufficient only in respect of potatoes. That is nonsense. We are self-sufficient in milk. We could increase the production of milk in this


country to a tremendous extent were we allowed to do so. We import milk products, such as butter and cheese, which were referred to by my hon. Friend, because we can buy them more cheaply than we can produce them. But we could increase the production of milk far beyond the present figure and there is no question about it. Everyone in the dairy industry knows that.
The Government have been urging hill farmers to go in for beef in order to assist the milk market and many have done so. But were it necessary—many farmers would prefer to do it—they could concentrate on producing more milk. That is one of the difficulties confronting the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that to encourage the production of milk would aggravate the position. But who is more responsible than the Government for aggravating the position regarding milk? The Small Farmer's Scheme which they introduced some years ago was designed to enable small farmers to produce three things of which we already had sufficient—milk, eggs and pigmeat. The money poured into that scheme aggravated the market, and the Government were to blame. They poured money into producing something entirely unnecessary and enabled a number of small farmers to keep going who should have amalgamated their holdings to form larger economic units. We know that such economic units are necessary. We do not want small farmers to go out of business because they are small farmers. But they will be crushed out by economic circumstances and it is far better that small farms should be amalgamated into economic units.

Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Member suggesting that it is the policy of the party opposite that the small farmer should be crushed out of existence altogether?

Mr. Kenyon: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am pointing out what is happening. Economic circumstances today are forcing the small farmer out. The figures which were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East show that that is taking place—57,000 small farms have gone out in the last 10 years. That is taking place under a Conservative Government.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Is the hon. Member distinguishing between full-time and part-time holdings, or is he including both?

Mr. Kenyon: I am including both. I am speaking of the small farm as it exists.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Kenyon: I have given way twice and I am answering the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). He asked about the part-time farmer.

Mr. Cooke: What is a small farm?

Mr. Kenyon: I can deal with only one Conservative at a time. I shall answer the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) when I have finished this answer.
The part-time farmer plays a very small part in the economy of the country. Unfortunately, he spends most of his time where he gets his money, in the industry in which he works. Than he spends his spare time on the farm. That is not farming. That is not agriculture. It is far better to have an economic unit where the family is growing up and working on the farm, producing the income of the family and producing the future generation of farmers.
I have been asked, what is a small farm? It depends from which part of the country one comes. In one part of the country if one is in horticulture 10 acres is a small farm, but in another 50 acres is a small farm. In another part of the country 300 acres is an economic unit. We see all round us farmers struggling with 50 acres and even 25 acres. I do not know if the hon. Member for Bristol, West watches television on Sunday afternoons. If he does, he may have seen a fortnight ago small uneconomic farms in east Lancashire. The question what is a small farm depends on which part of the country one is in. The point is that we must have economic units where the farmer farms to the best advantage, produces what is necessary for the economy of the country in a proper way and also produces the farmers of the future.
We are almost, and could be in a very short time, self-sufficient in three things, milk, potatoes and eggs. The imported liquid eggs which my hon. Friend


the Member for Enfield, East spoke about could be produced here if we set about the task. We have made tremendous strides in the production of beef, lamb and mutton, and in poultry. I am confident that we could become self-sufficient in a short time in meat. I do not like the intensive way in which birds are fed. I always think there is no taste in this stuff. They are not like the hens one sees running about the fields. They have a different taste, if they have any taste at all. However, people seem to like them. There is a tremendous market for meat and we could become self-sufficient, but we have to get over the problem of marketing.
Let us look at the way in which we are marketing today. We are going into the pre-packed market. Have hon. Members ever examined pre-packed meat and pre-packed bacon in the shops? It is the most expensive stuff one can buy. I was looking at some bacon only this morning. I do the shopping. The pre-packed bacon does not contain ½lb. in a package, but between 7 ozs. and 7½ozs. It is sold for 2s. 10d.—almost 6s. a lb. There is no sense in that. Bacon can be bought much cheaper in the piece or sliced. I am afraid the housewife is carried away by the package instead of by what is in it. It is nice, it is clean and it is hygienic, but housewives should not blame the farmer for the price. To package and transport it from place to place and then to sell it in the shop makes The cost more than the cost of production. Here is waste which should be eliminated. Marketing is one of the most important matters with which we have to deal in agriculture.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned the good work of the Advisory Service. I commend that work, but I also criticise it. We are living in an age of change, change in agriculture as well as in other things. I wonder if hon. Members in agriculture have noticed how the advice of the Advisory Service reverses itself over a number of years. We were always brought up—you, Sir James, as a farmer as well, no doubt—to believe that to harrow the land was a good thing. We were told that it aerates the land and enables the roots of plants to extend. Altogether it was a wonderful thing to harrow, but now I learn from the Farmers' Guardian that

the Advisory Service says harrowing is no good. It says that if we lime, slag and fertilise the land that is all that is necessary.
If I merely limed, slagged and fertilised the land I should feel like someone who had a bath but did not take his clothes off. The land needs a thundering good harrowing to get the stuff in and that does it a world of good. This is a change in advice from the Advisory Service. It used to be" Give it a good harrowing, rip it up, knock it about", and now it is, "Leave it alone. Put the slag, lime and fertiliser on, and that will eat through the rough grass and get down to the roots".
A short while ago we were told that leys were the great asset of farming—breaking up the old land and getting into ley farming. We were told that the ley was richer than the permanent grass, that it produced more and that if we wished to be modern farmers we should get on with the leys. We did it, and a wonderful job it was, too. What are we told today? We are told that if we treat permanent pasture right we shall find no difference between the production of leys and the production of permanent pasture. We have been ploughing, harrowing and fertilising for all those years for no good at all. I have wasted a terrible lot of money. In the experiments which are carried out on the Ministry's own experimental farms, they are proving that permanent pasture treated with lime, slag and fertiliser and properly grazed will produce as much meat as the ley on which we have taken all that trouble.
We were taught when we were young how to produce silage. I went into this business three or four years before the war. We were told that the best thing was to mow the grass, take it immediately to the silo and consolidate it, wasting no time and filling the silo day by day until it was finished. That was said to be the way to make silage. The agricultural implement manufacturers made implements for the job. There was the forage harvester which came along with the cutters and cut the grass, blowing it into the trailer so that it could be taken to the silo. That is the easiest way I know of dealing with grass. But the Agricultural Advisory Service now says,


"Cut your grass, and then wilt it. Do not take it into the silo straight away. You can use the mower and then you wuffle it, which means lifting it up and shaking it about. You wilt it for a period of 12 hours and then put it into the silo. That is the way to make good silage."
What a waste of time in the past by many of us—and we are still doing it. They may be right. They are proving what they say. But when hon. Members talk about farmers not being up to date they must remember what we have to put up with to be up to date. We have to go back to what we were doing 10 or 20 years ago, and then, apparently, we shall become up to date.
Food production and distribution is a world problem and should be dealt with in the context of world production. I recommend to the Committee the plan of the National Farmers' Union—a great plan which is a world plan and which deals with the production of food from all the different countries and suggests ways of its distribution to underdeveloped countries and under-nourished people. It is a crime that we permit surpluses to go to waste, and a crime that we do not produce as much as we could. Some countries are even paying farmers to leave 50 per cent. of their acreage idle—and yet people in the world are under-nourished. Only a world plan can deal with this. It may need brilliant minds to get it working. The Food and Agriculture Organisation ought to deal with this problem. When we utilise the food which is grown year by year and grow all that we can, then, and only then, shall we be able to give to those who are in need that which the earth can produce.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) in any great detail, for it would almost complete the time for the debate if I did. It was sometimes not entirely clear whether he was speaking in support of the Housewives' Union or the Landowners' Protection Association. He ranged over a number of subjects, and much that he said was wise in its way.
I want to comment on what he said at the end of his speech and what the hon. and learned Member for Mont-

gomery (Mr. Hooson) said earlier in connection with world food production and surpluses in this country. It is a simple and attractive thesis that we could produce surplus food in one or two products, that there are other people in the world who are hungry and that therefore we should send them our surpluses. But we must be certain about what we intend to do. If we are to help the under-developed world we must teach it to produce its own food. If, occasionally, in cases of emergency, a small quantity of food delivered to an under-developed country will help that process, then that may be a justification for sending it, but it is nonsense to pretend that we can export food at a very high cost from this country, transport it to the shores of under-developed countries and then, at even more fantastic cost, distribute it throughout those countries, and hope that this will boost that country's economy. In some underdeveloped countries a small rise in price for the popular foodstuffs will create quite enough production within the country itself. Our job is not to send food from here and to get rid of our surpluses, but to establish a price structure in the world so that there is incentive in the under-developed countries for food to be produced.

Mr. Hooson: Has the hon. Member noticed the analysis made of the help given to India by food from the United States over the four year plan? This has enabled people to be taken off the land in India, but agricultural production in India has improved considerably.

Mr. Clark: I have not seen that analysis. There are a few individual cases which are exceptions but, in the general run of events, exporting expensive food from this country and giving it to people who are not adequately nourished can probably do more damage to their economy than anything else. If I have an opportunity to see the hon. Member privately I will give him a number of examples where this has happened.

Mr. Kenyon: The hon. Member has got a completely wrong impression of what I said. I certainly did not intend to suggest that the giving of food should be a permanent thing. The hon. Member must realise that people must be fed properly before they can produce it for


themselves. That is what I meant to say.

Mr. Clark: I would like to agree with the hon. Member if I could. The trouble is that when food is given it tends to go on being given. I know of one famine which could have come to an end after two years, when the climatic conditions improved. However, food has been distributed free for four years and it will probably be distributed again next year. The trouble is that the incentive of the people who should be producing is taken away and they become unable to stand up to local conditions. I will not expand my arguments on this subject because I am probably already well out of order.
I wish to deal with the practical problems of British agriculture. I would like to begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on the excellent way in which he has set at rest the fears which have been expressed throughout the farming industry in recent months. Had his speech been made in my constituency it would have been delivered amid cheers, even at a meeting of the Farmers' Union, because my right hon. Friend said the sort of things the farmers in my constituency have been wanting him to say. We are delighted, in particular, with the fact that my right hon. Friend has agreed that the spirit of the 1947 and 1957 Acts is to continue and be brought up to date. We are delighted that he has agreed that some system of import control will have to be established.
We all accept that the concept of standard quantities can be applied over a wider variety of farm produce. As my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said, there is some difficulty about this concept. If established, standard quantities must be reasonably flexible because there is an important difference between establishing standard quantities of production for those commodities in which we are nearly self-sufficient and establishing them for commodities of which at least a half of our needs is imported. Are the standard quantities to stay for all time as between the amount of a commodity which is imported and the amount which we produce at home?
For example, we are importing a considerable quantity of bacon from Denmark. Meanwhile, Northern Ireland is

doing all it can to boost its bacon production. We have solved the problem of breeds and are producing a uniform and high grade quality of bacon. We are just launching into a huge campaign to promote the sale of Northern. Irish bacon on the British market. If our campaign succeeds, and if the British public demands mare bacon from Northern Ireland, are we to be limited by a standard quantity, bearing in mind the standard quantity set for Denmark? For this reason the standard quantities must he flexible.
It must also he remembered that on occasions a country like Denmark is in a stronger bargaining position than one of our own farming areas. Denmark is able to say—and produce figures to show —to us, "If you do not buy our agricultural produce we will not buy your manufactured goods". Unfortunately the farming areas in this country are not quite in the same position to be able to say that to the manufacturing areas of Britain. if Denmark can say it, Northern Ireland and the agricultural areas of Scotland and the West Country should he able to ask, If you will not buy our agricultural produce how can you expect us to buy your manufactured goods?".
Control of the import of feedingstuffs is of vital importance in the whole concept of the general control of imports. In Northern Ireland there are a large number of small farms. I should like to see them all become bigger, and I would not want to crush any of them out of existence. Because they are small it is essential, if the farmers are to earn a decent living, that they should concentrate on the farmyard production of livestock—poultry, eggs and pigs, although that production depends largely on imported feedingstuffs. We can turn those imports of feedingstuff into bacon, eggs and poultry just as efficiently, if not more so, than anywhere in the world.
If we have a proper structure for our imported feedingstuff prices the business will be done here in the United Kingdom and not in some foreign country. If my right hon. Friend decides to consider controls on imports, I urge him to remember that a reasonable, perhaps low, price for imported feeding-stuffs is absolutely essential.
A good deal of misrepresentation has occurred throughout the country—and


the Ministry must take some responsibility for it—about the position of the farming industry. It is only too common for the figure of £350 million spent in subsidies to be bandied around. An even more invidious figure bandied around is that 80 per cent. of the farmers' income comes from subsidies. The figures may be true, but it must be remembered that the farmers' income is the last charge, the top slice, of the cost of production of farm products. Inevitably the subsidy contributes most of the income. If the subsidy was taken away the men who would suffer would not be the tractor or seed merchants but the farmers. Inevitably, therefore, a large part of the farmers' personal income is represented by subsidy.
Subsidies must be looked upon as a proportion of farm costs. I have some figures with me which show that of a farmer's income, 83 per cent. can be put down to subsidy, but of the total farm receipts the subsidy represents only 20 per cent. I wish that that figure of 20 per cent. was used more widely than the one of 80 per cent. We talk a great deal about the £350 million, but we forget the size of the national food bill. My figures show that our annual food bill is £5,219 million. This reveals that farm subsidies cost the country only 6·5 per cent. of our total food bill.
I agree that the total bill takes into account the processing of foods which does not take place in our farms, but subsidies are a very small part of the money we spend on food. In this connection, it is important to remember that we produce half our own food, or about two-thirds of our temperate foodstuffs. That cost in subsidy is 61 per cent. of our national food bill. Because we produce that very high percentage—high for a small industrial country—we need buy only a relatively small amount of food in the markets of the world. We buy this food in a buyers' market and we are in an extremely strong bargaining position.
I suggest that if we produced only 30 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the food we need, and had to buy twice as much on the world market, we should be in a very much worse bargaining position. We should have to pay prices that were

10 per cent. or 15 per cent. higher. The £350 million that it costs under the present system to keep our farms going would be chickenfeed compared with the additional cost of feeding the nation. That fact must be kept clearly in mind.
The idea put forward, particularly when we are discussing national finance, that the bill for subsidies is big enough and must not be allowed to grow at all, is nonsense. As long as the farmers are running their farms efficiently, there is no reason why the subsidy, which puts us in such a strong position in world markets, should not go up to £500 million or even more. I do not base that statement on any social arguments, though the social arguments for keeping the farming community thriving are still there. One can justify subsidies by plain, straight, economic argument.
These are the facts. The wrong figures seem to be put about, the wrong impression is created. It is up to all of us in this Committee and, in particular, it is up to the Ministry, to put over the case, and to justify to the country and the world the real economic value of Great Britain's farming industry. A great responsibility rests on the Ministry to put over that case concisely to those who matter, so that we can face our farming problems with a sensible and down-to-earth outlook, and not with the talk of feather-bedding which, unfortunately, is still too common throughout the country.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I can only tell the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) that if I told the country the effect of his views on the people in the backward areas of the world who are living in conditions of starvation I could win any General Election. In this one instance the hon. Member's mentality is sufficient to breed Communism anywhere.
The Minister has introduced, very conveniently at this moment, the idea of import restrictions. I do not know what else he could have said had he not had something to say about those, but the result is that tonight he will be the toast of the farmers throughout the length and breadth of the country—

Mr. Harold Davies: I am not so sure of that.

Mr. Winterbottom: Let me finish.
The Minister has taken a very weak and gentle step. We have had no details of what he is proposing, but merely an announcement made in the House at a convenient moment. It is possible that, in the working out of the details, the idea itself may be lost.
i want to speak on behalf of people who have never been properly mentioned in this debate—the slaughter men, the gut men, the tripe dressers and the butchers—but if we are to relate the meat trades to the agricultural industry I believe that the butchers, and those who work in the slaughtering industry, are as much entitled to be heard as the farmers.
There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of our butchers because of the high price of meat—one of my hon. Friends has criticised them for that reason—but I say categorically that the high price of meat over the last three years has not been caused wholly or mainly by the butchers. If the Minister wants to challenge that statement let him take the wholesale price of meat over the last three years, when he will still find that the margin between the wholesale and the retail price has changed but little over the past twenty years.
Where, then, has the system fallen down? Why the failure of a deficiency payments system in the meat industry which was originally introduced to protect agriculture and to keep prices low for the consumer? Why have we had tremendously increased deficiency payments and tremendously increased meat prices? Every butcher knows that the system of production and distribution of meat is hopelessly chaotic. It is in that condition because there has never been an effective check by the Government of the free-for-all in the market. The Government have never attempted to introduce a systematic flow of stock from the farm to the butcher's block. In saying that I take into consideration all the difficulties, including even the seasonal fluctuations.
I condemn hook, line and sinker the free-for-all scramble where fatstock guarantees are concerned. I am not grumbling about deficiency payments. I approve of them, but evidence was submitted by the trade union movement to the inquiry into fatstock and carcase meat distribution which justifies my sub-

mission up to the hilt. if the Minister will examine the situation fully he cannot help but come to the conclusion that he must approach this position not as a farmer himself but as the Minister of Agriculture.
A great deal has been said about marketing. As the Minister of Agriculture the right hon. Gentleman should survey the whole complicated machinery of the marketing of the beast from the farm to the carcase on the block. If he does, he will find what many hon. Members have mentioned today but have not enumerated in detail—a great many people who are completely unnecessary in the process of meat distribution. I should like to mention a few of the people involved.
First, there is the farmer. I have no grumble about him. He does a good job of work and deserves all he gets, but there is the local livestock dealer who, for all he does, could be easily dispensed with. The local livestock dealer takes the cattle to the wholesaler and then they go to auction, In addition, there are wholesale stock dealers who sell to the commission agents. There are about seven other different types of intermediaries, all of whom want their cut and whose profits automatically affect the final retail price of the commodity. If there is anything that is open to speculation and price rigging, it is this system of meat distribution. Animals are moved from one auction to another and all sorts of things happen, as the Minister must know. If he will really face the problem, he will find that even the auctions are unnecessary and that it is possible, even in these days, to have a direct link between the producer and the butcher with one intermediary, namely the wholesaler.
The Minister talks of import restrictions. Let us examine the other side of the question. What about exports? Is it true that continental buyers at British auctions, buying at prices that are regulated by subsidies and exporting cattle to the continent, are getting the benefit of the Exchequer subsidy? This is one of those questions that must be asked. The Minister must know about this because this is part of the evidence that has been submitted to the committee that he mentioned earlier today, the committee which was set up last year and to which all


interested organisations have made their contributions, including those trade unions which are connected with meat distribution.
All this chaos and confusion in British agriculture, and particularly in the marketing of fatstock, need not have occurred. If in 1954 the law as it then was, with its regulations, had been slightly amended, with a few additions and a few omissions, it would have been possible for the existing law to have functioned, even in the most intense conditions of private trade in meat distribution, without the necessity to introduce many of the measures that have been brought about by the Conservative Government under successive Acts of Parliament. It would have been possible to keep out the intermediaries, the cost of which has contributed largely to undermining the original principle, namely the subsidisation of cattle production in order to keep prices low to the consumer.
I ask the Minister to consider the problem of grading. I know that there are some people who are very skilful at judging cattle, who, when a beast is on the hoof, can tell almost at a glance what its deadweight will be, almost to a pound, but there is no guarantee that such people will be right when the beast has been killed. I suggest that the time has come for the introduction of the deadweight at the point of kill, in order to prevent the unnecessary double payment of subsidies such as is taking place at present. The Minister knows what I am talking about. These reforms are essential if we are to get agriculture out of the mess into which it has fallen.
Before the war, there were 12,000 slaughterhouses in this country. By the end of the war, by wise concentration, we had reduced the number to 600. It was again allowed to rise, under wise supervision, until, after 1954, two Acts of Parliament affected the number of slaughterhouses in this country. After the first Act, introduced by a Conservative Government. the number in England alone rose to nearly 5,000. Scotland was not affected because the practice of restricting slaughterhouses by wise concentration has obtained in Scotland for many years. The second Act of the Conservative Government restricted the

number of slaughterhouses again until there are today about 2,500.
But there is no adequate meat inspection. Meat inspectors receive information that cattle are being slaughtered at one or other slaughterhouse at times when it is impossible to go to the slaughterhouse for the purpose of making an efficient inspection. All kinds of malpractices are taking place. These are some of the things about which the butchers are complaining. They suggest that the right relationship between the production of cattle for distribution in this country and the interests of the butchers at the selling end would best be safeguarded not by the intermediaries or even just by wise concentration of slaughterhouses but by a radical reform of the whole business of meat marketing from the farm to the butcher's block.
In 1951, the Trades Union Congress passed a resolution which went to the extent of saying that the business of meat distribution should be nationalised. I do not go so far, but I am convinced that there must be a thorough rationalisation. There should be about 12 to 20 slaughterhouses in this country doing all the killing. There should be a good factory abattoir at each slaughterhouse to deal with the by-products. The canning processes are of the utmost importance nowadays. The possibilities of canning may be latent at the moment, but people in the butchery trade and the canning industry know of the great opportunities there can be to develop the whole industry and make it a worthwhile partner of British agriculture. The Minister fails in his job if he does not see the potentialities of the relationship between slaughtering on this kind of basis and British agriculture.
The Minister has failed throughout. Even though he may tonight be the toast of the farmers in many parts of the country, and even though what he has done may be good as a short step towards progress, it will eventually be proved that he has not gone half far enough to meet the needs of agriculture and the butchers.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: Before I begin my indictment of the Government, may I first congratulate British agriculture on having survived 12 years of Toryism from the Minister and his predecessors.


The best hope for the industry is that it will not have to suffer very much longer.
One hon. Member opposite indicated that this was an historic debate. Those of us who have not had the advantage of reading The Times report this morning of what the Minister told a Committee last night have been able to gather two things from his speech today: first, that he had some proposals for import control, and, secondly, that the standard quantities for which guaranteed prices are paid would be extended to new production. When it came to the details, the Ministry frankly said that he had an open mind on the machinery and an open mind on how the whole of this would work. He finished his speech by saying that it would bring satisfaction and relief to the industry that the Government had decided on this policy.
However, the reception which the right hon. Gentleman had from hon Members varied considerably. We did not know the details. We did not know how this would work out. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that he would have been happier if the proposals were less sketchy, and that there was a need to make clear to each farmer how the Minister's proposals would affect him. How right the hon. Gentleman was. He seems to have forgotten that when the Government's Common Market proposals were being canvassed at Brussels and in the House of Commons, even though the hon. Gentleman was an ardent supporter of the Government at that time, never at any time was it made clear to the farmer how he would be affected by the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said that he was satisfied with what he called the adequate assurances of the Minister. May I say that the hon. Gentleman was satisfied with very little indeed?
Over the years, the belts have had to tightened in the agricultural community. Farmers' incomes in real terms have failed to keep pace with those in the rest of the community. We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) that, despite a 50 per cent. increase in output, the real net income of agriculture has gone up by only 11 per cent. compared with 50 per cent. among the remainder

of the community. That is the main issue before us today. Not a word was said by the Minister about what return he expected the industry would get from his proposals—whether it would be more or less.
We had an interesting theory from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) about prices. He said that it would be the farmer who would suffer, and that the Minister said that the consumer should not suffer and that the right hon. Gentleman would cut subsidies. I did not gather from the Minister that he proposed to cut subsidies. If the Minister did not say that, the theory of the hon. and learned Member falls to the ground. I hope that this will be made clear by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The 1963 Price Review is the last chapter in a very sad story. Try as he might, the average farmer has never quite grasped that elusive prize or a fair return for his toil. Small farmers—I am speaking not of part-time farmers but of full-time small farmers—and their wives whose immense labour we should not forget, have to slave and struggle day and night for seven days a week. They have not had a square deal in real terms as a result of the Government's policies.
The 1947 Act obligations are known to all of us. Proper remuneration for the industry and proper living conditions for farmers and farmworkers are mentioned specifically in the Act. But has there been proper remuneration for the industry? Can the Minister look farmers in the face and say that they have been properly remunerated when the stark figures reveal that incomes in the industry have not kept pace with those of the rest of the community? My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) commented on the fact that the Minister accepted the 1947 Act and said that he would adapt and tailor it. What does this mean? Does it mean that there will be a smaller return to the industry, a subject on which the Minister was exceedingly silent?
In December. 1961, we had the special White Paper, which was endorsed by the Government who said that they stood by all their obligations under the 1947 Act. We remember the special reason for those talks in the autumn—or, as one of my hon. Friends would call it, in the


fall—of 1961. Perhaps we shall see the fall of the Government in 1963. There were special reasons for those talks. They were held between the Prime Minister and the president of the National Farmers' Union because of the unanimous wave of derision which swept the country as a result of the 1960 Price Review. That flatulent White Paper could be summed up as a promise from the Government never to do it again.
Today, however, we are back in the same position. For the fifth time in eight years we have had an imposed Price Review settlement. It should not be forgotten that five times out of eight the farmers have failed to agree with the Government. Only a few weeks ago the teachers were clamouring, and rightly so, at having suffered from an imposed settlement. It is no comfort to them to know that in agriculture an imposed settlement is the rule rather than the exception.
Protests have been heard this year from Norfolk and Devon. Farmers have marched to Westminster to make their protest. From Wales also have come protests. Indeed, a vote of no confidence in the Minister has been passed in all parts of the country. I need not mention all the places from which protests have come, but passing I mention the Council of the Scottish N.F.U. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to deal with that declaration of no confidence. A vote of no confidence was passed by the Council of the N.F.U. in Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire, a fact which must be cold comfort to the Minister.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, whom we like so much, went down to Devon the other day where he faced a rather stormy meeting of the Devon N.F.U. He advised farmers with unprofitable lines to move into a more profitable line. Where and when are they to do it? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will be abe to tell the small farmers of Devon, and small dairy farmers everywhere, what the Parliamentary Secretary failed to advise them: what profitable lines they should adopt. They will be exceedingly interested in the advice that the Secretary of State can give.
There is not time to go through every aspect that was dealt with by the Minister. In the beef industry in particular, however, there has been an immense drive for expansion over the years. I have traced the statements made in each of the Price Review White Papers. In 1954, we were told that there was still need for more beef. We were told the same in 1956 and 1957. In 1959, we were told that there was still room for increased beef production. In 1960, it was the same story, and in 1961 it was said that a further stimulus to beef production was needed.
Having regard to the Minister's proposals today, what is the position of the beef section of the industry? Suggestions and fears have been expressed from these benches that the Minister's policy may well be restrictionist. Twice in recent years—and this is why the Minister has tonight been forced to come to a decision concerning imports—the industry and the Exchequer have suffered from the severe gluts on the market because of the inadequate policies of the Government. Although they have been in power for 12 years, all that happened in the past when there was a glut was kid-glove treatment from the Government and exhortation which did little to avert repeated and violent fluctuations. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination between the Minister and his colleague the President of the Board of Trade. I do not wish to blame the Minister unduly in this matter. It may be that it is the feet of the President of the Board of Trade which are dragging.
I was interested in the innuendo by the hon. Member fo Newbury (Sir A. Hurd), who has just come in, when he said with reference to imports that there was a great deal of need of education and for Ministers to speak with one voice and how glad he was that they were sitting together when this debate was inaugurated. There seems to have been a dichotomy of interest of the two Ministers in this respect in the past. The Minister of Agriculture seems to have lacked, in particular, anticipation of a glut. No steps have been taken in anticipation of one. Now he has been forced tonight to come to a change and to take decisive steps in this direction. We on this side of the Committee can argue why, despite the protests we have made over the years, this was not done before.
What was the real cause of this recent glut of Argentine beef? The real cause of it, of course, was that there was a lack of exports of Argentine beef because of a series of abattoir strikes. Did the Minister anticipate that at the end of the strike the beef would flow once again, and that there would be a glut on the market, and a severe one, because of the accumulated amount which would be forced on to the market? An inherent difficulty in this respect has been the failure of the Minister to co-ordinate with the Board of Trade and to take decisive action in time. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, there has been exhortation time and time again in the House, but there has not been sufficient anticipation to meet the problems arising. The Minister tonight can thank his lucky stars that he will have no need to introduce a Supplementary Estimate this year.
I failed to understand the Parliamentary Secretary when at the end of March he told the House quite plausibly that the level of imports this year had not been appreciably above that of previous years. No one quite knew what that statement meant—the farming papers certainly did not—since imports from the Argentine at that time were running double those for 1962 and those of Yugoslavia were five times those of 1961, So I do not know what source of information it was that the Parliamentary Secretary had that day.
I turn now to the question of milk. Milk is of fundamental importance to our discussion this evening because this was—I do not want to mix my metaphors too much—the last straw which broke the camel's back so far as agreement on the Price Review was concerned. The latest farm accounts report from the N.F.U. revealed the real state of the dairy producers. I do not know what the Government's policy is on this tonight. I do not know what are their views on this matter, or how they fit in with the announcement which the Minister made today.
In 1961 the White Paper told us of the need to bring home to individual producers the fact that output beyond a certain level was not in their interests and the principles implicit in the national standard quantity must be applied to the payments to individual producers. The

Government saw the need at that time, but they failed to take any decision themselves. They left it to the industry. The industry was given till 31st July to discover what was the right solution. The industry rejected the Minister's proposals, and, obviously, as promised, retribution came the following year, in the following Price Review.
Now I do not know what the position is. It may be that the Government have turned full circle on this, and the Milk Committee of the N.F.U. may be taking up a different attitude from what it did. But having regard to the importance of milk, 22 per cent. of all United Kingdom agricultural output, and having regard to the fact that we are getting closer and closer to Europe in trade, sooner or later the Government will have to find a solution to this problem, and it cannot be shunted on to the industry, as the Minister has done with this product and so many other products.
To summarise, I think that there are three major heads to the agricultural problems of today. First, that of management; secondly, that of marketing; and, thirdly, that of imports. I deal first with management. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) talked about increased productivity. Certainly from the technical point of view great strides have been made since the end of the war and output has increased considerably. It was the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West who told us that, but we are now faced with two greater and more difficult problems, those of productivity and profitability.
I was delighted to read of the emphasis which the National Agricultural Advisory Service is putting on management treatment on farms. It is able to deal with 20,000 farms now, and with the standardisation of procedures one expects that this will shortly snowball and will have an enormous effect on management. I am convinced that the universities, farm colleges, farm institutions and young farmers clubs must play a full part in ensuring that the practical mechanics of production receive more and more emphasis. All these institutions can do a great deal to help.
Dealing with the farm college, we in Wales are deeply disappointed with the dilatory attitude of the Government,


because this was one of the institutions situated in a suitable place in Wales which could act as a magnet to draw in young men and women from all parts of Wales and give them a weapon with which to fight the enormous battles we have to fight in Welsh agriculture to make it solvent.
The Government should also remember that it is seldom easy to increase income or productivity without stepping up output. Our farms are not big enough to do anything else. This is particularly true of the milk industry, and it is implicit in N.E.D.C.'s Report that home agriculture should have a fair share of the rising demand.
What is the target for the home producer? What is he supposed to do? Perhaps we could have a White Paper on this. There seemed to be an intimation from the Minister, for which I was grateful, that the home farmer would have a proper share of the growth in demand, but even though the demand rises in the home market, and even though the home producer will have an increased share, one hopes that the standard quantity will go up in line with the growth in home demand. The principle of standard quantities will be a restrictionist one if 'this is the only criterion. When there is more and more technical progress, when agriculture becomes more and more efficient, and every year an allowance of £25 million is made in the Price Review because of increased agricultural efficiency, if the growth of the market is the sort of criterion for expanding and raising the standard quantity, this policy will be restrictionist. At the same time the Minister will have to remember that increased efficiency results in increased production.
The comment was made, and I endorse it, that we live largely in a hungry world. We have a great responsibility in this respect, and I hope that every aspect of this policy of standard quantities and its implications has been studied to ensure that we do not adopt a restrictionist policy. I hope that the National Farmers' Union's food and farm plan has been given serious consideration. It may be years before it can be implemented in full, but I believe that fundamentally we would do great harm if we were unduly to restrict our agricultural

production when there are boys and girls without adequate food.
The long-term solution is the proper distribution of all the food that the world can produce. I hope that, even though we are involved in trading agreements with other nations, and even though there are many and diverse interests concerned, the full implications of the policy of standard quantities has been considered and that its application will not be restrictionist. We do not know, because the Minister has an open mind on this matter, what machinery has been worked out for implementing this policy. This is why we cannot endorse what he is asking for.
I come next to the question on marketing. This is of fundamental importance, but no proposals have as yet been put forward. We are still waiting for the Verdon Smith Report, and have been waiting for it for some time. I gather that the Report is not expected until the autumn. Marketing in agriculture is of fundamental importance, and, despite the prodding of my hon. Friend and others on this side of the Committee, it has taken twelve years of Tory administration even to set up a committee to consider it. It would be wasting the time of the Committee to have a long and involved debate on marketing because, having regard to practical politics, the Verdon Smith Report will not be available until the autumn and, therefore, there is no possibility that this Government can put anything that it proposes into effect. I will leave the question of marketing to my hon. Friend who, I hope in the process of time, will be able to put into effect the obvious reforms which are needed in this matter.
There is a vital need for industry to weld its buying and selling powers together. I was interested, having regard to the importance of co-operation and the need for the small farmer to become viable, in the observations of the president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union when at Oban he threw out the suggestion of what might be done in the matter of co-operation. He said that he was thinking of local levels where groups of farmers could get together to market a steady crop of fatstock or to sort out their store cattle in regular drafts at local sales.
I believe that a major drive, inspired by the Government of the day, will have


to be undertaken in the matter of marketing both at national and local level. We have seen in recent years the immense growth of machinery syndicates. and they are badly needed. We need selling syndicates, group producer syndicates and enterprise syndicates. I am convinced that this is one of the ways in which the small farmer will be able to help himself.
I turn lastly to imports. The question that farmers are asking, and will be asking at the end of this debate, because they do not know the answer concerns home production and imports. Both problems are tied together and we cannot separate them.
The question that they will ask is: what part has British agriculture to play? What has the Minister in mind? Is it not vital before he comes to the House that he should have some target in mind. Merely to say that it is the present production figure after 10 years' exhortation to produce more will not be a source of great satisfaction to those who produce beef. They are being told that from now on there will be a standstill.
Secondly, how much import control are we to have? How is it to be operated? Is it to be on tonnage or is it to be on price? There has been no indication from the Minister on this tonight. In the past —and this is why the Minister has been forced to put a proposed solution to the House tonight—it has been left to the accident of nature or to industrial strife in foreign parts as to the amount of imports which would at any particular time come into this country.
It is not merely the quantity of imports throughout the whole year, it is the saturation of the market at particular times which has caused this run on the Exchequer. What is wanted here is orderly co-ordination. There must be somebody, as my hon. Friend proposed, a commodity commission, call it what we will, to co-ordinate home production and imports so that there is someone overall to decide and to ensure that there is an orderly regulation in the part that both the home producer and also the importer can play.
Obviously, no marketing arrangements can work in isolation. There must be an import regulator with real teeth. The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested standard quantities of

imports means that he is a convert to planning, because this is planning pure and simple. Even though he is a recent convert, I welcome him. But before I can do so with open arms I want to know exactly what he intends to do.
This industry is vital to all of us. The cloud of an unfavourable balance of payments is still with us. We heard tonight some excellent speeches on the importance of agriculture to our balance of payments position. Parts of the excellent article by Mr. Rees-Mogg in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago have been quoted. It should be made apparent to the whole country that British agriculture has played a very important part in our battle to remain solvent. l hope that agriculture will continue to do so in the future. Unless production had been increased at the rate at which it has been increased, the balance of payments situation today would have been very much worse than it is. May British agriculture continue to play this vital part—a part which it has played so honourably and well in the past. May it play that part in the future, despite the inadequacies of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government.

9.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): We hold these agricultural debates from time to time in the House or in Committee, and at regular intervals one side or the other complains that it has been too long since we held the last one. Nevertheless, today's debate has been interesting, because a number of lion. Members have spoken on a wide range of subjects. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been looking forward to the debate with great relish, because this is the occasion for the quinquennial courtship of agriculture by the party opposite. They have assured us regularly during the course of the debate of their certainty of a General Election in October. My only sorrow is that on this great occasion there should be so few hon. Members opposite to enjoy the ceremony.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) misquoted my right hon. Friend when he said that he had talked about adapting the policy laid down in the 1947 and 1957 Acts. That was not what my right hon. Friend said. He said that we adhered to the principle laid down in


those Acts, but that we had to think about adjustments to the things that flow from them. That is very different from tailoring the Acts themselves.
I was rather shaken to hear the hon. Member say that his condemnation of the Government's agricultural policy derived from the fact that five out of eight recent Price Review settlements had had to be imposed on the farming community. Is he suggesting, on behalf of the party opposite, that in respect of a problem which many hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) among others, recognise to contain many difficulties in striking a balance between the claims of the agriculture industry, the consumer, the Commonwealth and all the other industries and interests, it is the duty of the Government to accept the assessment of the agriculture industry? If he is not saying that, his statement makes no sense.
He also spoke about the expansion in beef, and said that for many years the Government had been asking the beef industry to expand and had been encouraging it to do so, and that this was rather odd in view of the fact that the Government were now talking about standard quantities. It may have occurred to him that one of the main reasons for encouraging an expansion of beef was exactly the point that he raised about the difficulties that exist in the milk industry. If that industry was to move into another section of agriculture and be profitable, beef was the natural and best choice. I cannot speak with knowledge of his part of Wales, but I can speak with knowledge of my part of Scotland, that this has been happening to the benefit both of the farmers and of the nation.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the three important factors. These were mentioned also by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). Management and marketing are two of very great importance. I will say more about them later. He also mentioned imports and it may interest him to know that the reason the Scottish National Farmers' Union members were so upset by the position in the early part of this spring was that there was no control of imports.
The debate has expressed clearly and rightly that the farmers all over the country have been anxious for one or two specific reasons. First, there was the problem of the income of farmers, mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberavon. It is interesting to note—I throw out these figures because sometimes they get forgotten—that at the last F.A.O. census in 1959 this country was third in the league of countries when farming income was related to industrial income. The two top countries were Australia and New Zealand. If we take industrial income at 100, our farming income was 80. It is true that farmers are anxious. It is also certainly true that compared with almost every other developed country in the world we have done better than any except those two countries which, let us face it, are largely agricultural in the whole of their production.
I can quite understand that many people have felt that some changes were needed in our system of agricultural support. We felt it right to maintain the basic principles of the 1947 and 1957 Acts to which our farmers have rightly attached a great deal of importance over the last 15 years. In one way or another hon. Members opposite have said during the debate that they agreed with a great deal of what was said by my right hon. Friend. There were a great many "Hear, hears", from hon. Members opposite, as well as from hon. Members on this side of the Committee, while he was speaking.
Hon. Members opposite have said in the past that they agreed that we should enter into negotiations with the Common Market. I know that there might have been quite considerable differences of opinion about how the negotiations should proceed, and about what a satisfactory outcome would be. But at least hon. Members opposite agreed that the negotiations should take place. Having done that, one would imagine they would have agreed to the carrying through of the negotiations to the end. The breakdown in February was the moment when one could move to some new consideration of policy, and I think, therefore, that they can hardly blame the Government for being slow about new ideas when there has been only the period since February in which to develop them.
I do not think any hon. Member opposite would have carried on negotiations with the Common Market and at the same time carried on negotiations for an absolutely different policy. That at least seems to be a curious way of dealing with it. In that period we have moved fairly fast and I think it not unfair to point out that what the hon. Member said was that this was the sort of policy we ought to have followed a year ago, at a time when his own party would have been negotiating with the Common Market.
It is always a relief to get a clear picture of what the Liberal Party means to do. This at least we have had in very clear measure today. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hopson) has told us quite clearly that in the Liberal Party's view the farmers—not immediately, but in the presumably near future—should get their return from the market.
It will be a comfort to the farming community to know that it will be a very long time before the Liberal Party can put its ideas into practice. The hon. Member said, or implied, and this was perfectly fair, that a managed market would put up food prices, and that this was what my right hon. Friend had been trying to achieve in the negotiations in Brussels. This indeed could have been done in the context of a satisfactory negotiation with the Common Market. This could in these circumstances have been accepted, but I am amazed that the Liberal Party wants to accept it without any of the advantages which would flow from that policy.
If I may move to other points made in the debate, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked me specifically about sugar. The same subject was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). Until April the price of sugar in Britain remained pretty steady in spite of the increase in world prices from about £25 a ton last autumn to £65 a ton. The increase was offset by the removal in stages of the Sugar Board surcharge. We were protected against changes in the world price by our fixed price contracts with the Commonwealth and South Africa.
Since the beginning of May, however, the world price of sugar has suddenly

spiralled up from £70 to £97 a ton today, a quite unprecedented and fantastic rise. This has naturally been reflected, although not yet fully reflected, in the price which our shops have to charge for sugar. At first these prices looked suspiciously like a speculative bubble which might burst, but now it looks as if the prices could well be maintained for a considerable period.
My right hon. Friend has naturally been considering urgently with the Sugar Board for the past fortnight the possible introduction of distribution payments, a kind of surcharge in reverse, so that our housewives can enjoy again the benefits of the price which is well below the present world price—under which we are buying most of our sugar under the Commonwealth and South African agreements. There are certain technical difficulties in the way which must be removed. This must take a little time, but we are satisfied that we can find a way round them. Unless the world price falls substantially, it is clear that we must soon introduce these distribution payments. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement to the House as soon as he can.

Mr. Hoy: The price has been going up over a considerable period. Although the right hon. Gentleman bases it from the beginning of May, the Parliamentary Secretary in January, in discussion of a miscellaneous provisions Bill, described it as "astronomical" when the price had reached £40 a ton.

Mr. Noble: The retail price has been moving only recently because of the large stocks of sugar which were held.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who opened the debate for the Opposition, raised one or two points with which I shall deaf as quickly as I can. He felt it wrong for the Government to announce changes of policy "just like that". Perhaps he does not realise that the whole principle of agricultural stability rests on trying to maintain a consistent policy over as long a time as one can. This we have tried to do. It is true that my right hon. Friend, as he told the House in 1961, foresaw that this position could arise, but if, as soon as one foresees that a position may arise, one switches policy violently one way or another, then one


does exactly what the farming community has begged every Government of every sort to avoid.
I was amused when the hon. Member referred to our conversion to faith in the Commonwealth. I can think of other people who seem to have had a rather sudden conversion. He asked me specifically whether our policy was to switch money from deficiency payments into production grants. The position is reasonably clear—that the whole policy of production grants must be worked out in relation to specific items which we need to stimulate. For instance, later this evening we shall be talking about winter keep grants and grassland renovation grants. There is no fixed policy to increase or decrease production grants. They will be judged on their merits at the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) made a very careful and thoughtful speech on lines which most of us in the Government expected him to follow, because the policy which the Government have announced today is one which my hon. Friend has been advocating for the last month or two. It is, therefore, not surprising that we expected him to be pleased about it. He asked me specifically whether I would confirm that the Government were retaining the principle of the 1947 and 1957 Acts, and I can give him that assurance. He asked whether the butter and cheese arrangements were satisfactory from the point of view of New Zealand and Denmark. At the G.A.T.T. meetings this week New Zealand asked for a group to be set up to consider dairy products. My right hon. Friend supported New Zealand in this request and this has been agreed.

Mr. Harold Davies: I tried to discover by question from the Minister the other day whether anything had been done about the importation of pig meat from Denmark, because under agreement Denmark can export to this country any quantity.

Mr. Noble: My right hon. Friend, of whom the question was asked, tells me that we agreed with the Danes at the E.F.T.A. meeting that we should consult about this problem.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) talked about a great

many points. The main point which I wish to pick up was one mentioned also by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), the hon. Member for Aberavon and others about millions of people in the world who are starving. This is a problem which faces the world squarely. Half the world's population is undernourished. In its support of this scheme the N.F.U. is right, but for us, as the biggest food importing nation, it is a little odd to be talking about producing large surpluses to export to underdeveloped countries. It is a pity that during the course of the debate, when the point was made, insufficient was said about the tremendous amount of aid which we have given in the past to these countries not only in food but in technical advice and all forms of aid, which we are most able and ready to give in supporting a better standard of living in those countries, either by encouraging them to produce more food for themselves and giving them the know-how or by encouraging them, by building up their industries, to make the money to pay for food. This country has led the world in these ways for the last fifteen or twent years.
I need not mention the points he made about farm workers, because he was admirably answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East. However, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West made a point with which I entirely agree: that the farm workers have a very high reputation, not least because they have never taken part in strikes. One of the reasons for this has been the closer and better liaison that has existed between farm workers and employers, a much closer relationship than has existed in any other industry.
It was suggested that we should look for new markets as well as new marketing systems. We are always ready to do this and, although I do not see him in the Chamber at the moment, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend who is the Chairman of the Livestock Export Group, which has made considerable strides in the last year. I would also like to congratulate a very distinguished Scottish market gardener who will be known to some of my Scottish hon. Friends and who has been doing a great deal of exporting to the Common Market countries over the tariff, showing what


a really go-ahead horticulturist can do in competition with countries to which we are so often said to be inferior in this field.

Mr. Peart: Will the right hon. Gentleman outline the plans the Government have in regard to new marketing systems? In view of the dissolution of the Horticultural Marketing Council, will the right hon. Gentleman inform us what the Government intend to do about horticulture and other things?

Mr. Noble: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to make my own speech in my own way. As I said earlier, I intend to say something about marketing.

Mr. Peart: rose—

Mr. Noble: I said that I would refer to marketing, and I intend to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. If the Minister does not give way other hon. Members must not persist.

Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) raised several points which have already been dealt with, but I agree with him that the farming community as a whole feels slighted by the fact that large subsidies are apparently paid to them, although the price of food continues to go up and they do not get any better off. I agree with him that the farming community does not want large subsidies on those terms.
I also agree with him that very few people understand the subsidy arrangements for pigs. It is unfortunate that as the farming community moves into more sophisticated forms of farming the language necessary both to make the facts clear and to be effective often gets more complicated. I am assured by my right hon. Friend that his Department is doing its best to make these instructions clearer and simpler; and I will certainly try to do the same from the Scottish Office.
The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen asked why we were waiting for the Verdon Smith Report and could we not just accept the Report of the Lucas Committee. I am sure that she realised that the Lucas Committee's Report, written in 1946 or 1947, was written

in very different world conditions from those we have today. Further, when we have set up a Committee to inquire into marketing, it would be the height of discourtesy to the Chairman and the Committee to announce a decision without waiting for that Report. It would also be stupid. Finally, if we were to try to tackle the problems now, as the hon. Lady asks, instead of waiting till the autumn, it would mean imposing something on both of the N.F.U.s, the trades, and all the others concerned. I do not think that she really meant us to do that.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, apart from giving us a picture of the Liberal Party's policy, attacked my right hon. Friend on the grounds that my right hon. Friend wanted this subsidy bill to be reduced—something that he neither said nor implied—and said that this was an oblique attack on farmers' prices. The hon. Member for Aberavon made it quite clear that my right hon. Friend had not talked about cutting prices, and that is so.
If members of the Liberal Party want to make an effective contribution to our debates, they might at least listen to the debates, and not come with their speeches prepared beforehand—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the farmers should be protected from subsidised food from abroad. Indeed, the Liberal Party's policy has changed a little in the last few years. When he referred to parsimony, patrimony and matrimony as the three methods of obtaining credit in the farming world, I must say that the mention of matrimony made me think of the Liberal Party—

Mr. Hooson: Did not the Minister say that he wanted to reduce the subsidy bill and, at the same time, keep the price to consumers down? If so, is not the only third price in the triangle that paid to the farmer?

Mr. Noble: That involves several entirely different conceptions, and it is not even an accurate version of what my right hon. Friend said.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) suffered a little from the same complaint, if I may be so bold as to say so, and did not notice that the


wicket had changed a bit overnight. I hope that, as a bowler of some distinction, he appreciated the point.
I have already thanked the hon. Member for Enfield, East for dealing very successfully with the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, but he also mentioned the problem, and it is a problem, of the number of holdings that have disappeared and the number of people who have gone out of agriculture. He said, rightly, that this had caused some hardship. It is inevitable, I am afraid—it has been inevitable in many other realms besides agriculture—that if we are to be efficient, and if we are to be more productive, as we have been for the last 15 years, there must be some amalgamation of holdings, and if profit is to be made there must be more mechanisation and less labour.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about extra powers for the Potato Marketing Board. I am informed that the Board itself has never asked for the powers he referred to but, if it does, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, referred to an interview which I gave to the Scotsman. I am glad that he and I were roughly in agreement. He fat that management and marketing, as did the hon. Member for Aberavon, were two of the key points. My hon. Friend told us also how farmers in the past had been too conscious of their accounts to let anybody else see them. This is an attitude which we must dissipate as quickly as possible and until farmers are prepared to show their accounts to the appropriate advisory authority and get advice we have little chance of securing increased efficiency.
The Government feel, and I think that the party opposite feel to a considerable extent, that marketing systems should be encouraged by government but should be originated by the farmers themselves. The whole of the farming co-operative movement started from the industry, and the best of our marketing boards started

from within the industry. We feel that this is the right method. We are delighted to help, encourage or advise on any of the problems involved as they come up. I hope that the National Farmers' Union will be able to think out ideas for marketing which will be successful and which will achieve the sort of results that I think we all want to arrive at.

The hon. Member for Leith asked about the potato problem. This year, as he probably knows, the price of potatoes is already falling, and I think that I can reasonably safely give him an assurance that the price will not rise again. As for next year, the Price Review has specifically added an extra 10s. to encourage rather more acreage and that should help the position. The hon. Member spoke about the standard quantities, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark). These are things which the Government must consider carefully in the next months with the N.F.U.s. It is a machinery point but it must be carefully considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, also referred to the price of feedingstuffs. This is important to the farmers in his area and I appreciate his point.

I feel that the important thing in the debate is that it has been made abundantly clear that there is growth available for the home farmers if they are prepared to take the opportunity to get it. Ours is not a restrictive policy. I believe that what my right hon. Friend has said will have removed the anxieties which the industry has had over the problems of imports. I believe that the farming industry in Great Britain is as efficient as any in the world and that from today farmers will have the confidence to go forward and plan their arrangements sensibly.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That Item Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 232.

Division
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse Leo
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Ballenger, Rt. Hon F, J


Airtsley, William
Bacon, Miss Allce
Bence, Cyril


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Beaney, Alan
Blackburn, F




Blyton, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Boardman, H.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowles, Frank
Hooson, H. E.
Probert, Arthur


Boyden, James
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Callaghan, James
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberta, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cliffe, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Collick, Percy
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, Edward


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Kelley, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dalyell, Tam
King, Dr. Horace
Small, William


Darling, George
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Steele, Thomas


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stonehouse, John


Dempsey, dames
Lubbock, Eric
Stones, William


Diamond, John
McBride, N.
Taverne, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacColl, James
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacDermot, Niall
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, James
Thornton, Ernest


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Finch, Harold
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Timmons, John


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
McLeavy, Frank
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie
Wade, Donald


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R,
Wigg, George


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A,


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, John
Willey Frederick


Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
, Williams, D J. (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold
Williams, LI (Abertillery)


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
O'Malley, B. K.
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, William
Parkin, B. T.



Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
. Charles A. Howell and


Healey Denis;
Peart, Frederick
Mr. McCann.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Dance, James


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Buck, Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Allason, James
Bullard, Denys
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Burden, F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Atkins, Humphrey
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Doughty, Charles


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Drayson, G, B.


Balnlel, Lord
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Barlow, Sir John
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter


Barter, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bidgood, John C.
Cole, Norman
Farr, John


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Fell, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bingham, R. M.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Foster, John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&amp;Stone)


Bishop, F. P.
Corfield, F. V.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Freeth, Denzil


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Coulson, Michael
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gammans, Lady


Box, Donald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gardner, Edward


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Braine, Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Brewis, John
Cunningham, Knox
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bromley-Davertport,Lt.-Col,SirWalter
Currie, G. B. H.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Brooman-White, R.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhew, Victor







Gough, Frederick
Longden, Gilbert
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Walter H.
Ridsdale, Julian


Grant-Ferris, Rt.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Roots, William


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Grosvenor, Rt.-Col. R. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian
Seymour, Leslie


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaren, Martin
Sharpies, Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLoughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Shaw, M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Smithers, Peter


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maddan, Martin
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maginnis, John E.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maitland, Sir John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Stodart, J. A.


Hay, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, Ray
Studholme, Sir Henry


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Hiley, Joseph
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side


Hobson, Sir John
Miscamphell, Norman
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, t


Hocking, Philip N.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Teeling, Sir William


Holland, Philip
Morrison, John
Temple, John M.


Hollingworth, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Heave, Airey
Thompson,SirRichard(Croydon,S.)


Hopkins, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. 
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Howard, Hon. G. It. (St. Ives)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Turner, Colin


Hughes-Young, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir Jo


Iremonger, T. L.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


James, David
Partridge, E.
Walder, David


Jennings, J. C.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker, Peter


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wall, Patrick


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wells John (Maidstone)


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pitkington, Sir Richard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pitt, Dame Edith
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Kimball, Marcus
pott, Percival)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kirk, Peter
Pitman, Sir James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hon, J. Enoch
Wise, A. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Leburn, Gilmour
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Woollam, John


Lilley, F. J. P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Rawlinson, Sir Peter



Linstead, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES,


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rees, Hugh
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Longbottom, Charles
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Mr. J. E. B Hill

Original Question again proposed.

Sir Stephen McAdden: rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIR-

MAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING AND GRASSLAND SCHEMES)

10.8 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Scheme the following five Schemes, that is to say, the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1963, die Grassland Renovation (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1963, the Grassland Renovation (Scotland) Scheme, 1963, the Winter Keep (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1963, and the Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme, 1963, if that is agreeable to the House.

Mr. Frederick Peart: We shall not object, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we shall be rather critical of this procedure because we have had a long day on agriculture, and, although I know that these things are done by mutual arrangement, to discuss now so many Schemes affecting not only England and Wales but Scotland is not really satisfactory. I know that some of my hon. Friends from Scotland would have preferred these matters to be discussed at another time. In the last Division there were nearly 40 Government abstentions. [Laughter] The Patronage Secretary knows that that is true there were 40 abstentions on a main agriculture debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I merely inquired whether it was agreeable to the House to take the six Schemes together. If it is not, we shall take them separately.

Mr. Peart: We naturally accept that we should have a general debate, but we rather resent the manner in which the Government are going about this, particularly since 40 Members of the Government have abstained from voting in a main debate.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: It would seem to me that the Scheme which is separate from the others is that

dealing with fertilisers. Could that be kept separate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The suggestion is that that one shall be kept separate.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I assume that if we take all these Schemes together, we shall have a Scottish Minister to reply to the points which will be raised on Scotland. because Scottish Members have been the main participants in this debate in past years?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Hon. Members will appreciate that the three Schemes—the Ploughing Grants Scheme, the Grassland Renovation Scheme and the Winter Keep Scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the other three for Scotland are interwoven among each other and, therefore, it is convenient to discuss them together. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be replying to any points which Scottish Members may wish to raise in the debate.
With permission, I will touch only on the few significant differences in the Scottish arrangements, leaving my hon. Friend to deal with any Scottish points which are raised. I do not feel justified in detaining the House with a lengthy exposition of each of the Schemes, because for many years ploughing grants have provided us with familiar and sometimes controversial debates. But in grassland renovation and winter keep we are breaking new ground with two new grants. However, they are reasonably fresh in the minds of many hon. Members because we had very extensive discussions about them in Committee upstairs. Hon. Members who were not there will, I am sure, have had the opportunity to read the debates and to find out all the information that they wish to have on this subject. I hope that I shall have the approval of hon. Members if I confine myself to a fairly brief outline of the Schemes and take a little more time to develop the relationship between the three Schemes, and then take a look at this wider approach to grassland and tillage in general.
The Ploughing Grants Scheme is on lines which hon. Members are well accustomed to discussing. There are two significant changes this year. For the Part I grant, payable on land which has been under grass for at least three years, we


are reducing the rate from £7 to £5 an acre as was foreshadowed in the Annual Review by my right hon. Friend. For the Part II grant, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has fairly described as a kind of reclamation grant, we are advancing the age at which grassland can come into the Scheme. For some years past the qualifying date has been 1st June, 1946, but we shall now be admitting land which has been continuously under grass since 1st June, 1951. The rate for Part II grants remains at £12 an acre and is payable on land which calls for a considerable outlay if it is to be brought into a reasonable state of cultivation.
It has been the practice, I understand, in the past to give the House some details of the payments which have been made on the acreages and the amount which has been ploughed up during the preceding year. For this purpose, I shall take the financial year 1962–63, since it is the latest year for which I have figures. During that year in the United Kingdom as a whole, £11·3 million was paid to 180,350 applicants who ploughed up a total of 1·6 million acres. The bulk of that expenditure was on the £7 grant. There were only 7,250 applications for the £12 grant, covering 52,000 acres at a cost of approximately £630,000.
Taking the scheme as a whole and breaking it down into the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, 68 per cent., or £7·7 million, went to England and Wales, 10 per cent., or £1·2 million, to Northern Ireland and 22 per cent., or £2·4 million, to Scotland. All these figures are virtually unchanged compared with those of the previous financial year.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: Can the hon. Gentleman break down the figure for England and Wales?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: For Wales it was 10 per cent. and for England 58 per cent.
During the debates over the years, there has been sustained but by no means unanimous criticism concerning the general principle of the ploughing grant. The burden of the argument has been that we were paying the farmer for what he should do in any event.

Some hon. Members have questioned whether the grants have real value to the small farmer or to the dairy farmer. I do not go all the way with those criticisms, certainly not with the suggestion that there is no place on the small farm for the plough. It is not true. It is particularly significant that of the £7 million paid out for England and Wales for field husbandry grants under the Small Farmers Scheme, over £5 million was paid for ploughing operations on small farms specifically. Those who have urged us to drop the ploughing grant would do well to remember that when last they were discontinued, between 1949 and 1951, the United Kingdom tillage area declined by about 1 million acres.
A further point on which there has been wide agreement in the House and in agricultural circles is that the Government would not be justified in tampering with the ploughing grants, much less in doing away with them, without putting forward an alternative in their place.
That brings me to the first of the new Schemes, which is the Grassland Renovation Scheme, and later I will be touching on the Winter Keep Scheme. Under the former, we are offering grants of £4 per acre for renovating permanent grassland which is at least seven years old and is both suitable and adequately prepared for this technique of improvement. By adequately prepared "I mean particularly any essential preliminary drainage work, which we spoke about in Standing Committee, and which could be eligible for the payment of drainage grant under the appropriate Act. This point was raised in Standing Committee both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard).
The full scope of renovating operations under the Scheme is contained in the Schedule. To qualify, a programme must consist of a combination of these operations costing at least £6 per acre net—that is, excluding anything such as fertilisers, which are already subsidised. On the other hand, the cost of spreading these fertilisers would be included in the £6 as this is an operation which is not subsidised, as lime-spreading operations are.
In estimating the cost, we shall adopt a general rate which takes account of farmers' labour costs, overheads, machinery depreciation and the like, and will allow tolerances for local or special conditions. In other words, flexibility is one of the keynotes of the scheme. It has been drawn up in such a way that the farmer can—and should and must—get together with the advisory officer, or with his equivalent in Scotland, and settle upon a series of operations which are best suited for the type and condition of the sward and the renovation which the farmer desires to undertake bearing in mind any earlier treatment that the sward may have received. The grant will be paid on satisfactory completion of these operations.
There is one point of detail which I should mention. We do not propose to pay this new grant on top of the field husbandry grant for renovation which is already available under the Small Farmer Scheme. The Field Husbandry grant was purposely fixed relatively high at £9 per acre because no renovation grant was generally available at the time.
I turn to the Winter Keep Scheme which all along has been designed specifically for the livestock rearer in the hill areas. We want to encourage him towards greater self-sufficiency in his winter feeding arrangements and we are offering £2 an acre for approved crops grown for that purpose. In Scotland there are three rates at 30s., 50s., and 80s. which differentiate in favour of poorer land of the higher type and which are expected to result in payments averaging out overall at about £2 an acre. In Committee on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill there were differing views about who should get these grants; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton moved to recommit the Bill and the matter was then brought before the House.
I do not propose to re-enter these arguments for and against the inclusion of the upland dairy farmers in particular or the marginal producers generally. The Scheme inevitably follows the Act in restricting payments to those engaged in predominantly livestock rearing enterprises on predominantly livestock rearing land. Tile list of eligible crops is contained in the Schedule to the Order and has been deliberately drawn in wide terms

so as to cover the different systems and practices in the hill areas of the four parts of the United Kingdom. Oats, for instance, have been included because of their traditional importance as winter feed, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but all other price-guaranteed crops are excluded.
There are two matters of detail which I may usefully bring to the notice of the House in this connection. First is the eligibility point. This is expressed not in terms of fields or tracts of land but of agricultural units, which may sometimes be two or more farms, and provided they are genuinely worked together —indeed, it may be three or four—as a single livestock rearing unit or single livestock rearing enterprise they would qualify. There may be instances where winter keep for hill animals is grown on kinder lower lying land in the bottom of a valley, perhaps, and even some distance away. I think we should accept these arrangements provided we are satisfied that the combined unit is a single livestock rearing enterprise.
The second point is that the grant should be restricted to the acreage needed to provide winter keep for livestock expected to be wintered on the unit. We are not hoping to help the small minority of hill farmers who may be in a position to grow surpluses for sale, nor will the grant be paid on crops grown for summer grazing.

Mr. Harold Davies: When the hon. Gentleman says single livestock rearing unit in the upland or marginal areas, does he imply that livestock must be the main occupation?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, indeed. The main purpose of this is that it should be mainly for livestock rearing units—that is, for units with at least 60 per cent. of that type of land and with that type of return. I think this was mentioned recently at Question Time.
I turn to the differences between the Schemes and their relationship, and this will show the point of taking the three Schemes together. I have given no more than a bare outline. I think I can conveniently show first the relationship between the ploughing grant and the renovation grant.
I am sure it is generally accepted that the £12 grant in Part II has made a


steady and useful contribution towards reclaiming the very oldest forms of permanent grassland. At the other extreme, the £7 grants, which are now becoming £5, have given a real stimulus to ley farming. Between the two extremes lies the older permanent grassland for which ploughing is neither the only nor necessarily the best approach to improvement for one's own farm purposes.
Hitherto ploughing grant has been the only possible form of assistance which has been available to a farmer with this type of land, and a recent enquiry in England and Wales showed that nearly half of the £7 grants were being paid for ploughing grassland that was at least seven years old.
Here is the "gap" which the Grassland Renovation Scheme, with its emphasis on the techniques of surface treatment, will fill adequately. Given proper renovation, we believe that suitable permanent grassland will endure for some time after these operations have been carried out, and we do not propose to entertain applications for a further renovation grant for seven years after the initial one. Renovated grassland will also be disqualified from ploughing grant during that period because we do not want to encourage the farmer to undo the good work that he has done by renovation.
Next I come to the inter-relationship between the Ploughing Grants and the Winter Keep Schemes. In the same way that we want to offer an alternative to the ploughing grant as an instrument for improving grassland, similarly, as far as winter keep is concerned we want to help livestock rearers whose enterprise does not necessarily attract benefit from the price support, does not revolve around a monthly milk cheque, and does not necessarily fit in with the traditional pattern of taking the plough round the farm. One of their main problems in present day conditions is to overwinter their stock in sufficient numbers to bring in a fair return without undue reliance on having to buy a lot of feed. As we know, this acreage is an expensive item.
We want to encourage them to get the maximum they can out of their limited acreage. The ploughing grant, with its emphasis on ley farming and rotational cropping, does not necessarily operate in

that direction, and it is against this background that we are offering farmers the winter keep grant as an alternative to the ploughing grant. They will be able to make their choice field by field.
If they choose ploughing grant, the crop which they sow, and the three succeeding crops, will not be eligible for winter keep grant. The effect is to disqualify the land from earning winter keep until much the same time as it could earn a further ploughing grant if it had been immediately reseeded to grass after the initial ploughing.
For convenience I shall illustrate the position in terms of the flat rate of £2 per acre which we are proposing to bring into operation in England and Wales. In Scotland much will depend upon the grading of the land, and for all practical purposes this option between winter keep and ploughing grant will only bite on the land for which the rate of 30s. per acre is proposed.
The first point is that not all hill farmers will need to make the choice between ploughing grant and winter keep grant. For example, those who from time to time can take a crop of hay from their permanent grass will not be thinking of ploughing it, and for them the winter keep grant will simply be a new and additional benefit of £2 per acre. Similarly, those who can take four winter keep crops in successive years will stand to gain by claiming £8—£2 per year for four years—in winter keep grants instead of an immediate payment of £5 for the ploughing grant. By the same token the ploughing grant will be the natural choice for the man who is mainly growing cash crops and only fits an occasional winter keep crop into his rotation.
The kind of farmer who will need to take a careful look at this option and weigh up what it is worth his while to do is the man who in the space of four years plans to take three winter keep crops and one cash crop. He will need to decide whether it is better to take the outright £5 ploughing grant on the initial ploughing operation, or to receive £6 in winter keep grant over the next four years. The pattern in Scotland will differ from this, because the rates of winter keep grant will vary; they will


go from 30s. up the scale for the three different types of land.
We are concerned that there should be no confusion in farmers' minds about the effect of the option, and if the Schemes are approved—and I hope that they will be—we shall spell it all out in detail in a leaflet which will be sent out so that farmers can decide what to do with their fields and will know what rate of grant they will be able to get.
Turning quickly to the grassland renovation and the winter keep grants, there is no question of an option between them, nor of an automatic disqualification on winter keep grant from grass crops taken from a renovated sward. On the other hand, we do not want to see renovated grassland mowed prematurely simply to earn winter keep. Depending on the grassland itself, and the renovation programme which is adopted, there may be fields from which the proper follow-up treatment for, say, the first year would be to graze the sward rather than to cut it. This explains the provision to pay winter keep grant when—but not until—it would be sound farming practice to take a crop. This is a matter on which we should naturally look for technical opinion from the N.A.A.S. officers who will help to shape the renovation programmes.
Finally, and this will illustrate to hon. Members how closely these Schemes are inter-related, there is a technical problem which touches upon all three of them. In my analysis of the methods of improving older permanent grassland, I pointed to renovation as an alternative to ploughing and direct reseeding. We are anxious that the choice between these methods should be based on technical considerations and should not be influenced by questions of eligibility for winter keep. That is why grassland which is at least seven years old and which is ploughed up and directly reseeded to grass will not be disqualified from winter keep for the normal period but will be treated in exactly the same way as renovated sward. It will earn the winter keep grant as soon as it would be sound farming practice to mow the new grass rather than to graze it.
It may be of convenience to the House if I give a quick break-down of the cost of the Scheme. I emphasise that this

is only an estimate because one does not know what farmers will opt for, but the rough figures for these two grants in England and Scotland are as follows. For winter keep in England and Wales, £1,100,000, approximately, Scotland, £1,300,000. Ploughing-up grant, England and Wales, £5,200,000, Scotland, £1,200,000. Grass renovation, England and Wales approximately £1 million, Scotland about £60,000. I emphasise that these are only estimates for the first full year because it is very difficult to know exactly how farmers will react to these schemes and how they will opt for each particular one as the choice is so wide.
To sum up on the six Schemes before the House, we believe that ploughing grants have played and can continue to play a useful part in improving our grassland and in maintaining its balance with tillage, but there is room for encouraging intensive surface treatment of older permanent grassland and for giving upland livestock rearers a special incentive to produce all possible grass and arable crops needed to overwinter their stock.
Our answer to the first problem is the Grassland Renovation Scheme, and in a full year we hope that at least a quarter of a million acres in the United Kingdom will benefit from this treatment and qualify for upwards of £1 million in grants. Our answer to the second is the Winter Keep Scheme, and to the extent that hill farmers prefer it to the ploughing grant we foresee payments in a full year of over £2½. million in the United Kingdom.
We expect the additional Exchequer payments under the new Schemes will be broadly offset by the reduction in the take up and the rate for Part 1 ploughing grants. I am glad to say that both new schemes have the full backing of the industry and the N.F.U. In this survey I have sought to pick out all the salient points in each of the schemes and to explain how they are interlocked with each other. I hope, therefore, that these six Schemes—the three for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the three along similar lines for Scotland—will find the approval of hon. Members because, as I have said, they will be of considerable benefit to the farming community.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Do the estimated costs which the right hon. Gentleman gave include administrative expenses and, if so, what proportion of the total will go on administration?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Administrative costs are included in the figures I gave, but I am afraid that I do not have a breakdown of them.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: The estimated figure of £60,000 for grassland renovation in Scotland seems an extremely small sum for a vast area like Scotland. With our mountainous regions and peak lands, and considering the amount of soil reclamation needing to be done, £60,000 is an extraordinarily small amount. It does not seem worth bothering about.
Breaking the sward, the removal of matted grass and all the other things described by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) earlier in the day represents a lot of hard work. I regret that my hon. Friend is not here. but earlier he read some extracts from the written advice being issued by the advisory officers of the Ministry of Agriculture. He told us about the advice on the latest methods for breaking down and smashing the sward. He described how a lot of this hard work is no longer necessary. Despite all this, we are now proposing to give grants to farmers who carry out a process which, according to my hon. Friend, the latest advice says is not necessary. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Charley told us about the way he used to break up the land years ago. He spoke at some length about the process of harrowing. Incidentally, it is a harrowing business to bring Schemes of this sort before hon. Members at this late hour. Why should a farmer have to carry out processes to attract this grant when the advisory officers are saying that such processes are no longer necessary? It is nonsense for one Government Department to offer a grant to a farmer to do something which another Department says is unnecessary for the improvement of his grass. I strongly object to the Government using the taxpayers' money to carry out some process which the experts say is unnecessary. 
We are then told about how a farmer must spend not less than £6 per acre on cultivating, harrowing, breaking the sward and so on. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley were here. He would soon put us right on this matter. He showed us how all these processes were out of date. He explained that one merely had to lime the soil, fertilise it and put something else on, although I cannot remember what it was.

Mr. Denys Bollard: I, too, heard the speech of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), and I can assure the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that he is not doing justice to his hon. Friend's remarks. His hon. Friend said that whereas previously the advisory service of the Ministry had been advocating ploughing grassland, it now advised cultivation other than ploughing, with fertiliser and liming treatment—which, as far as I understand, is provided for in the Scheme.

Mr. Bence: That is quite right, I am not complaining about the application of lime, farmyard manure or other fertilisers, because that is the advice given, but, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the other processes are not necessary. I shall read in HANSARD tomorrow morning what was said. I thought the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley and Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) were about the best in the earlier debate. I always listen to these agricultural debates, because so much of the taxpayers' money is involved. We laymen have, in the past, left too many decisions on spending money to the farming lobby in the House. It is time those of us who know nothing about farming elicited some information.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has told us has been very illuminating—

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I, too, heard the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), but would not the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) agree that there is a vast difference between a plough and a pitchpole?

Mr. Bence: I have not the foggiest idea what a pitchpole is, but I would be grateful to the hon. Member if he would explain—

Mr. Stodart: Not now.

Mr. Bence: Well, I cannot contradict the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know what a pitchpole is.
I hope we shall get more information on winter keep and why the system of grants should he different in Scotland from that in England and Wales. In England and Wales, the farmers get £2 an acre, but in Scotland there are three classes; Class A attracts a grant of 30s. an acre, Class B, £2 10s., and Class C £4—

Mr. Hooson: Class distinction.

Mr. Bence: There are no such classes in England—the grant is a uniform £2 an acre. I assume that even the best land gers that amount, whereas in Scotland the man with the best land gets only 30s. Why is there this discrimination? A man in England may have 500 acres of very good land. but he gets his £2 an acre, but a similar man in Scotland gets only 30s., but in Scotland, as the winner is longer, the cattle must be kept longer. It is quite unreasonable.
If a farmer has good land in Surrey, Devon or Dorset, he gets a grant of £2 an acre, but the man in Scotland gets only 30s.—

Mr. Timothy Kitson: How can anyone in Surrey get this grant?

Mr. Bence: I suppose that, according to this document, if a farmer in Surrey is preparing his land for winter keep he will get £2 an acre if his purpose is purely to rear stock. Are there not farmers in Surrey who do that?

Mr. Kitson: Not in Surrey.

Mr. Bence: Then let us take Devonshire. Will that county qualify? There are uplands in Devonshire. I do not know whether the North Downs or the South Downs count as uplands, but I should have thought so. The grant would surely be applicable to Devonshire and Cornwall.
These farmers, therefore, will have £2 an acre whereas farmers with the same sort of land in Scotland will have only 30s. This is discrimination against a Scottish farmer. We have this discrimination against anything Scottish all along the line, and that is why it is un-

reasonable that these Scottish Schemes should have to be debated in parallel with the English. We should have a half-day set aside for these matters which are so important to Scottish farmers. I hope that a Scottish Minister will give us a full explanation of the reasons for this discrimination.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I do not suppose my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be imagining that I am about to sound the Jubilate over these Schemes. [An HON. MEMBER: Out of order."] I strongly expressed my views on 10th May, 1961, when we were debating the Ploughing Grants Scheme, and last year I would have intervened had it not been that I was obeying the convention of the House in that having been in the Chair earlier in the day on another matter it would not have been proper for me to have intervened in the debate.
We had the assurance of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, as reported in column 1087 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 14th May, 1962, when he indicated that the Government would be introducing schemes, now embodied in these Schemes, which would bring in the whole question of winter keep and renovation of permanent grassland. To that extent I welcome the trend which is emerging. In 1961 I did my best to indicate that I thought that this ley farming was scientifically unsound and was producing a type of food for cattle which was altering the whole physical structure of the animal and possibly having deleterious effects on the health of the nation.
I have no doubt that if we eliminate all deep tap-rooted weeds out of the grass we deny the animal certain essential constituents in the grass which would ensure an adequate and scientifically sound diet for the human consumer. I have little doubt that we are still only tinkering with this whole subject and that we may find as the years go by that some of the most dread diseases are being partly encouraged by the type of farming in which we have been indulging, and not least cancer.
I am certain that as we go on we shall find these dread human diseases are often attributable to defects which are the result of faulty diet, and no diet is


more likely to be involved than meat which has been wrongly fed. If we have been denying animals which have been feeding on grass the right chemical diet we can be sure that this will have a damaging effect on the human system, not least the liver, which is very often the source of major ills in the human being. There has been no direct grant to agriculture which has been more outrageously abused than the ploughing grant. That was one of the principal reasons why I tried to raise some objections to this type of grant in 1961. I said that if we proceeded on those lines I would be prepared to vote against the Order.
I was thankful that we got the indication we did last year, that we would be getting Schemes dealing with permanent grass in order to try to improve our permanent grassland, rather than adopting the three-year ley system of rye grasses and so forth, based on the assumption that if they were kept in the ground for more than three years they would go steadily back and that, therefore, they should be ploughed up and kept in the tillage rotation. Such a system might have done us some good in wartime, and in fact I believe it did, when we were denied grains, but it is an inexcusable policy in peacetime.
For that reason, I welcome the trend to pay more attention to our permanent grassland. Over the years, while the ploughing grants have been in operation and while we have been encouraging the sowing of leys which have been ploughed up every three years or so, we have destroyed a lot of our permanent grass which can never be restored. If one studies the life cycle of grass—and I have done so along the lines of the famous Frenchman, M. Voisin, who has written some interesting books on the subject—one can see how the lean years follow if the leys are left in the ground for too long. If we continue to plant and drill the type of leys that we have, we shall have to plough them up in order to get the land in good heart.
The sooner we can encourage farmers to plant permanent leys again and look after the permanent pasture, the better. That is one thing which is absent from these Orders which we are considering. We are looking after what permanent

pasture remains. We are encouraging winter keep, but we are still carrying an at £5 instead of £7 an acre with this three-year ley idea. I regret this. I want to see it taken right out of British agriculture altogether. It is unsound scientifically; it is open to the most monstrous abuse.

Farmers, some having just bought their farms, mine the land for wheat, after which they put it down to ley farming on a three-year basis and take the three-year grant then they mine it again, and then down it goes to grass again, and again the ploughing grant is claimed. This is an outrageous misuse of public money, and it should be stopped. I want to see good farmers withdraw from this sort of practice.
I support the encouragement of good farming of our permanent pastures, and I congratulate the Government on having introduced this Scheme dealing with permanent pasture; but the Government must realise that if they make the ploughing grant for three year leys greater than that which they are giving for the encouragement of proper farming of permanent pasture, they are running the risk of discouraging the man who ought to be encouraged. If we are going to have a £5 grant for the short-term ley to be ploughed up after three years, and only £4 for the permanent pasture, that is the wrong way round. It should be the other way round.
As I say, I hope to see the encouragement of the short-term ley abolished. I have had some little experience of this sort of thing—I admit not in this country but in Southern Ireland—and I have seen what has happened when good permanent pasture has been ploughed up as a result of Government action during wartime. I have seen how the animals would always go, when possible, to the older pastures where there were deep tap-rooted weeds, bringing up trace elements from the subsoil, and how they would avoid these new leys if they had the opportunity. That is a lesson which the Government should bear in mind more than they have done in past years. The time will come when we shall look back on this period when we have encouraged the growing of short-term rye grasses as one of the most deplorable in the history of British agriculture.

10.55 p.m.

Mir. E. G. Willis: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has said. I think that it was the year before last when the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland promised that the Part I ploughing grant, at least, would be looked at again. For the past few years, there has been general criticism of the Part I ploughing grant. and the criticism has not been confined to this side of the House. It has come from all parts. The Part I ploughing grant would be looked at, we were told, in connection with the abolition of the marginal agricultural production grants. The two were linked together. We were told that both would he examined and something would be put in their place.
Now we have the substitute for them, and my first criticism is that the Part I ploughing grant is still to be £5, which is only £2 less than it was previously. As well as I can calculate it quickly, there will still be a considerable amount of ploughing grant as a result of this Scheme. I think that we expect to pay out a sum of about £1·2 million in Scotland instead of £2·4 million. Is that right?
What is the position as regards the Part 11 ploughing grant? It has always appealed to me as being something in the nature of a reclamation grant. I do not know to what extent it is covered by other grants. Is the amount of land ploughed up in Scotland and qualifying for the Part II grant declining or remaining fairly static? If it is not declining and there is still a fair amount more to be done in Scotland, it is beneficial to have the grant at the level it was before.
Turning to the Grassland Renovation Scheme and the Winter Keep Scheme, to what extent will the administration of these grants be likely to affect the people who are losing money by the stopping of the marginal agricultural production grants? The three Schemes are linked together, because, obviously, farmers will have to make a choice as to what they intend to do and what grants they wish to qualify for. Does that permit of sufficient flexibility to cover a number of people who will probably suffer hardship when the marginal agricultural production grants come to an end?
At this hour of the night I am not accustomed to making long speeches, but

there is one other matter to which I would draw attention. In the Estimates for this year there is £2,500,000 for ploughing up and £740,000 for marginal production assistance grants—a total of about £3,250,000. I notice that the total under these three Schemes is expected to be £1·3 millions for winter keep in Scotland, £1·2 million for ploughing up, and £60,000 for grassland renovation. If my calculations are correct, that makes a total of just over £2,500,000, so that some £750,000 less is to come in as a result of these Schemes.
We have argued in the past that we were not in favour of the Part 1 ploughing grant because we believed that a great deal of it was wasted and because we thought there would be considerable abuse and because much ploughing up was done simply for the sake of getting the grant. We have said that the money could he spent in better ways in Scotland. We have said that there would probably be bad consequences from giving the grant in some cases, but although we have criticised it in that way we have also said that the money could be used to better advantage. We have pointed out that there were large areas capable of reclamation and that there could be an extension of valuable areas.
Therefore, the argument in the past has been that we would be better off in spending the money in some other way. It does not seem to me that what we are doing is the best thing. By these three Schemes the Government are saving £750,000, which is a 25 to 30 per cent. cut. Therefore, I am not quite certain that what the Government are doing is entirely beneficial. Personally, I would rather have seen something more positive which would have provided inducements to enable essential work to be done. I would rather have seen that than this cut. I am glad, however, that the Government have looked at the Part 1 grants, although I hope it is realised that this money could have been put to better use than it will be under these Part I ploughing up grants.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I have always understood that these Schemes were to help those people who have been helped up to now by the marginal grants, and when


I recall the excitement of a year or two ago when it was suggested that the M.A.P. grants should be abolished, I am reminded that it demonstrates to a certain extent the comparative welcome afforded by the industry to these Schemes.
At this hour, I want to make only one or two brief observations. I am glad of the distinction made in the Winter Keep Scheme between Scotland and England. It makes at least some provision for the difficulties experienced by the farmers in Scotland, although I should stress that the Scottish N.F.U. feels strongly that the average rate of grant in Scotland under the Scheme should be at least £3 an acre and that barley should be included in the Scheme.
Obviously, the administration of the Scheme in Scotland will to a considerable extent affect the fortunes of the individual farmers who benefit by it. I hope that the administration will be reasonably flexible, bearing in mind that anything that encourages the raising of livestock must be of value in the context of our agricultural policy. Indeed, one of the recent crises in the industry has been the unusual scarcity of calves coming forward.
I should like to ask two questions. First, will a farmer get an acreage payment for the same field two years running if, for example, he sows it for hay in the first year and takes a cut of silage in the second year? Secondly, will there be any alternative to the Winter Keep Scheme? Will the farmer have any choice of registering under another scheme as well as under this one?
I welcome the Schemes and am sure that they will contribute much to the solution of the difficult farming problems in the uplands.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland three questions. First, I am sure that all farmers who are concerned about the withdrawal of the Marginal Agricultural Production Scheme will be grateful to him if he can indicate how far it is likely that the same farmers will benefit under these Schemes and the extent to which they are likely to benefit. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could assure them

that in its administration the Scheme is likely to cover the same sort of land as is suffering, or is likely to suffer, from the withdrawal of M.A.P. grants.
Secondly, as the Under-Secretary is, no doubt, aware, it is not always easy to discover whether a holding is a croft. It has not been made easier in all cases by the recent Acts. It would be an advantage to farmers, who do not have a great deal of time to read all Acts and Orders, to have it said simply under which scheme they are to apply. Many farmers in my constituency. in Orkney in particular, are owners but for certain purposes they are nevertheless deemed to be crofters. I understand that if they or crofters properly so-called are already entitled to grants under other Schemes, they will not be entitled to apply under this one. I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will clarify the position of owner-occupiers in the crofting counties who may be in doubt which scheme applies to them.
Thirdly, what exactly is the meaning of paragraph 7 of the Grassland Renovation (Scotland) Scheme, 1963? It states:
A grant under this scheme shall not be paid where, within the immediately preceding period commencing with 1st September, 1963, any previous such grant has been made in respect of the same land.
I take it that "land" is construed literally and that it does not mean in respect of the same holding: that is to say, a man may conceivably have a grant for one part of land which he holds and he may still be entitled to apply for grant for the next period for another parcel of land which he occupies.
Preceding period commencing with 1st September, 1963,
presumably means an annual period; that is to say, if a man has received a grant for the period 1963–64, he will not be entitled to a grant for 1964–65. But he may be entitled to apply for a grant for a succeeding period after 1964–65.
I should be grateful if the hon. Member would clarify those points.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I have three brief comments to make on the Schemes. On the occasions on which I have taken part in the debates on the ploughing grants, I have always maintained that it was not certain that the


subsidy should be payable for grass ploughed up after three years. This is too short a time. I wish that the £7 an acre had not been cut but that instead the period had been lengthened from three years to six or seven years. That would automatically have channelled the ploughing grants into the upland arras, because in the lowlands they would not have kept their grass down for that length of time.
I welcome the Grassland Renovation Scheme, which is tackling a worth-while project. It reminded me of a comment made a year or two ago by the chairman of the Scottish Agricultural Industries at what is probably one of the best-farmed grass holdings in Scotland —at Leaths near Castle Douglas, owned by Imperial Chemical Industries. The chairman then commented that farmers who manage their grass well can make twice the money of those who do not. He bore that out, for within three years on that farm the costs fell by £800 and the income rose by £3,500, entirely due to a shake-up in grassland management.
The Winter Keep Scheme has caused farmers in Scotland a good deal of interest. May I ask one or two questions about it? Referring to paragraph 2 (2) on page 2, will my hon. Friend fulfil the undertaking which was given to interpret the words "predominantly" and "to any material extent" in as flexible a way as he can? I believe—and I am supported in this belief by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland—that the grading principle for this land is a good principle because it moves towards paying the higher grant on the land which is most difficult and least productive. How is the process of grading getting on and when will farmers who will be affected know what their grade is?
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised a point which interested me in his calculation of present subsidies and the new subsidies. We do not know how much of the new ploughing grant will go to the lowlands and how much into the marginal areas. Has my hon. Friend any figures which he can give us about that?
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) mentioned the question of barley. There is a case on strictly good husbandry grounds for including barley. I know

that oats is the traditional crop and that oats straw has played a wonderful part in cattle production. But we all know what is being done with beef with the the barley crop, added to which there is no doubt that on the high ground, in particular in the late spring, one can sow barley much later than oats and can get a much better crop. On that ground, I think that a good case could be made for including barley in the Scheme.
In Committee I raised a point about a procedure whereby a farmer should be able to appeal to some body about the grading or about whether he was included in or excluded from the scheme. My hon. Friend said then that he would undertake to consider this matter. Can he say whether he has come to any conclusion? Has he considered, if he has come to any conclusion, having some sort of centralised body dealing uniformly with the whole of the Scottish winter keep grant or is he thinking of having rather more local bodies on which there would be members who would probably be thoroughly acquainted with the land under winter keep?

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I want to ask one question. I welcome the Grassland Renovation Scheme, but what worries me is the cost of administering the Scheme if it is to be administered properly. I wonder if my hon. Friend, when he replies, could give us some idea of the anticipated cost of administration in proportion to the full cost of this Scheme, because I think that it is going to be terribly difficult for the Ministry really to discover exactly what operations have been carried out. I think it is very necessary to be certain that the grant is being paid after the work has been done. As I say. I wonder if my hon. Friend could give us that figure when he replies.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: A quarter past eleven! Such is always the fate of Scotland and, indeed, of agriculture. I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, where are the people who were complaining earlier today that we had not sufficient opportunities to discuss agriculture. I remember that one hon. Gentleman opposite below the Gangway got rather heated about this. Of course, the debate which we had earlier was held because


the Opposition had decided to discuss the subject, but what we are dealing with at the moment are six Schemes which the Government are under obligation to bring before the House. They cannot avoid it. They have to do it.
To my mind, these six Schemes, three for England and Wales and three for Scotland, are important subjects to which those interested in these individual problems should have been able in reasonable time, when their heads were clear, to apply themselves. This is really not a laughing matter, as it appears to be to some hon. Members opposite. It is a very serious matter indeed that we should be discussing these Schemes so late with all the usual pressures, the Scots, as usual, getting the blame for keeping the House up.
The Government have a certain responsibility for the way they treat agriculture. The complexity of the matter, I think, was amply demonstrated by the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with it. I do not know of anyone who managed to get all the figures which he used. I am sorry to say that I did not. I think it is essential that we should have the figures and be able to assess them in relation to other Schemes on which the farmer, certainly the farmer in certain areas in Scotland, places a great deal of importance and who is very concerned about losing what was the marginal agricultural production grant.
Quite frankly, with all the interlocking intricacies in relation to this matter, I think that it will be some time before any farmer will be able to find out what he can do and when he can do it, and how long it will be before he is qualified for another grant, if any. To take the odd man out, the hardy annual, the ploughing grant, many of us have expressed a certain measure of dismay that we are faced with relatively the same standby, because, if we take the cost of the others, which may well be construed as relatively much more important, we are left with the same old formula in relation to the ploughing grant.
There is no doubt that any good farmer would do the ploughing anyway and leave his fields alone for the requisite time to enable them to recover. I do not think that there is any justification for spending the amount of money that we are plan-

ning to spend. The money could be put to far more beneficial uses. I suppose, though. that it depends on what one means by beneficial.
One question which has not been asked is how do we reconcile what we are doing naw and the encouragement that we are giving to certain farmers who, by the nature of what they are doing are marginally relatively uneconomic, with what we were told in the major debate earlier today? There was a question mark against the Government's aims in relation to the expansion of production, yet what we are doing here is to encourage relatively uneconomic expansion.
In what we are doing today we are harking back to what was promised in the Price Review of 1962, when the Government's policy was slightly different from what it is now. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present. He talked about the quinquennial courtship of the electorate. I never have any difficulty with the farmers in my constituency. When I think of what the right hon. Gentleman said today in relation to Commonwealth producers, and when I remember what has gone on during the past 18 months in connection with this problem of land reclamation and the renovation of grassland, and why we should do this and how we should do it, I begin to wonder.
…;no large scale schemes to rejuvenate hill land over a big area have been attempted…;
If we are to reverse our policy two basic decisions must now be taken (1) To encourage the production of more home-killed mutton and lamb at a price which is economic to the farmer. Then either New Zealand must be encouraged to sell more of her meat elsewhere and rather less here, or the Government must help with a publicity campaign to sell British lamb in Europe. (2) To discourage excessive milk production"—
this should be of interest in relation to the flexibility which we do not have in one of the Schemes before us-
and use the grazing saved for the fattening of the extra sheep from the hill country.
Unless a major Government decision of this sort is taken and the industry is given a green light for a period of not less than 15 years, it is hard to believe that farmers will be willing or able to find the large amount of finance necessary.
That appeared in an article headed "The Regeneration of Scottish Hill Land".


by Michael Noble, M.P. Ploughing grants are a mistake, and I think that this all stems from the Government being caught on the wrong foot.
Then we come to the Winter Keep and Grassland Renovation Schemes. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) failed to notice the poetry of these Schemes. We read about the application of the Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme, 1963:
Where it is tied to land situated in an area consisting predominantly of mountains, hills or heath.
I expected to see the Secretary of State in his kilt bringing this Scheme in with the bagpipes playing in the distance while he told us all about it and explained how he could not meet the wishes of the N.F.U. in Scotland in relation to what they thought would be an adequate spread of grant.
We have an effort made here which certainly is not made in the English Scheme, which provides a flat £2 per acre. Here we have 30s. which can go up to 80s. People concerned with this land say that it could have started below 30s.—it could have started at 20s. —but it should have gone beyond 80s. to take in categories of land which should be considered in this respect. I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us why the Government decided to categorise land in this particular way and why they did not go very much further in reference to different types of land.
Not all upland land is deserving of this grant, whereas from the point of view of economics and good husbandry 80s. is not enough for other land. An attempt is being made to replace a grant which people respected and in which discrimination was already present. This is one of the things which commended M.A.P. to the Scots. The amount spent on that, according to the latest available figures, was about £i million. I do not believe the figures are complete, but I understand that for 1962 the amount was somewhere about £743,000 and it has been much the same in the last cropping year.
An answer must be given to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about whether those embraced by these Schemes will "lose out" altogether. In

his definition of "predominantly" the Under-Secretary should tell us whether farmers will be included who, because it suits the nature of their farms in those areas, go in for dairy farming to a certain extent. It is unfair to cut them out unless it is again the buyers. Judging from what has been said today, before long the buyers will be against beef, depending on how we interpret "standard quantities" and how they are to be related geographically. It may be that implicit in the article by the Secretary of State to which I have referred is the suggestion that the buyers want to get rid of excessive milk production and that this is implicit also in this Scheme.
We have been told that the administrative costs of grassland renovation will be pretty high. I think that the figure of £300,000, or 10 per cent., was mentioned in Committee. I suppose that this expenditure in inevitable. This being so, why is the grant to be £4 per acre in relation to the minimum cost of £6 per acre? Considering the difference in areas, the average cost will be much higher. I should like to know what the average cost will be; although I appreciate that it will depend on what is done.
An interesting article appeared in one of the farming journals this week on the reviving of dead land and, as far as I can see, £6 per acre would not cover the cost of the seed. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider the comments made in the last couple of years by the experts in Scotland about the reclamation of marginal and sub-marginal land. J. D. Nutt, Advisory Economist at the Edinburgh School of Agriculture, has produced figures based on a survey that was carried out at Newton Stewart and other units. Referring to net costs, he wrote:
It has, however, been possible in a number of cases to arrive at a reasonable measure of the costs involved in the actual operations associated with reclamation after allowing for grants under ploughing, M.A.P. or the Livestock Rearing Acts. The available information on net costs can be summarised by saying that the average net cost for 22 cases worked out at £18 3s. 6d. per acre.
For this type of upland farm this work involves a considerable expenditure—and the words I have just quoted appeared in the same booklet in which the article written by the Secretary of State, from which I quoted, appeared.
We gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the sum of £7 per acre


was wasted because of what was done on a certain type of land. Thus there was no renovation and we did not get the production we should have got. It could have been £12 per acre—and remember that we are talking about the possibility of 17 million acres of rough grazing. Perhaps 46 per cent. of it could be covered. I do not know. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this can be done for £12 per acre, he must realise that it has not been done before and that the great bulk of the ploughing up grant option was based on the sum of £7 per acre. There is an obvious lesson to be drawn from this.
Considering the type of work that had to be done, even £12 per acre was probably not enough. If so, the £4 per acre in relation to the minimum of £6 is totally inadequate. It may be that, once again, we will not be able to revive and regenerate the soil and the sward of these upland farms.
Despite what I have said, I suppose that we will let these Schemes pass tonight. We never have the same Government spokesman speaking twice from the Scottish Office. I do not doubt at all that if we had another debate on the subject next week, we would have the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) taking her turn at it. Last year, we had to listen to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) on education—now we are to hear him on agriculture. I do not see the other Under-Secretary who then gave us the pledge that that would very likely be the last time.
I hope that this will be the last time we will get this sort of patchwork, interrelated, interlocked, which does not add up to an effective policy to deal with the needs of our uplands farmers. And even with the ploughing grant there will be a considerable waste and unnecessary expenditure of money which could well have been devoted to more discriminating purposes elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the answer to the pleas of the N.F.U., not only about the limitation of the spread from 30s. to 80s. but about the exclusion of barley from the list of crops for winter keep.
If we debate the two subjects together, nobody should be satisfied that the two

things we have been talking about and deciding make a coherent policy. They do not. I should like to know what the Government's long-term policy is for Scotland's smaller farms, the upland farms. I read an interesting article called "The Family Farm." That is what we are talking about tonight—not so much the business farm. How long will those farms last? There is a very considerable question mark, and I do not think that the answer has been given very fully by what we have heard tonight.

11.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I am glad that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) appreciates the versatility of Scottish Under-Secretaries—as, indeed. we appreciate his versatility in dealing with so many subjects. Last year, when I was speaking on educational subjects, I was very conscious of facing an ex-schoolmaster, but now I think we are more nearly running level—

Mr. Ross: We have a few more farms in the Kilmarnock area than the hon. Gentleman has in Rutherglen, and a Member representing Kilmarnock must be well up in farming, too.

Mr. Brooman-White: I have done some very small-scale farming, so I have that to my credit. I am glad, too, that the hon. Gentleman did not this evening find a misprint—that is always a relief to me.
The hon. Gentleman opened his remarks with a very pertinent comment on the importance of the farmers being able to appreciate, in this complex of schemes, precisely where the balance of their advantage lay in selecting their operations and planning ahead. In that, I hope that they will have received some guidance from the very carefully considered remarks of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.
I will try, in a rather patchwork speech, to answer a number of questions raised, rather than try to review the whole subject again, but the main answers will, of course, come in the explanatory leaflets which we hope to issue before the Schemes come into operation, which will enable the agricultural community fully to appreciate the implications of the Schemes and their inter-relationship, and


make their decisions on that basis. We hope, too, that these farmers will turn to the advisory services for further background and support if they have any doubts about which course would be more advantageous to them.
The subject of administrative costs was referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and by other hon. Members, too. For the grassland renovation, to which the hon. Gentleman directed a lot of his remarks, the average administrative costs will be about 10 per cent., and the average expenditure by the farmer would probably be in the bracket of £8 or £9. Ten per cent. is a high administrative cost, but this is a Scheme which will involve prior inspection and obviously will mean travelling and work on the spot. Administrative costs will fall somewhat in line with those incurred in other schemes of the same kind which are subject to prior inspection.

Mr. Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the cost was about £8 an acre?

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Member mentioned the figure of £6, but we think that on average it will work out in the £8 to £9 bracket overall on grassland renovation which, unlike the Winter Keep Scheme, is not limited to livestock rearing areas. This is one of the answers to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) who was worried that Scotland was proportionately not making as much use of this Scheme as was England. We expect substantially more use to be made of the Winter Keep Scheme in Scotland than in England.

Mr. Ross: Even if the farmers obtain seed from the National Farmers' Union and use what they call the "hill reclamation mixture" it will cost £6 6s. an acre. Therefore, the figure of £8 is well out.

Mr. Brooman-White: I take £8 for the limited degree of seeding which will be incurred under the renovation scheme rather than complete sowing out of new land. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) raised some points about the health aspects of grass husbandry. As a Scottish Under-Secretary I wear a statutory minimum of two hats, one of which is from the Department of Health and I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no evidence at present of any ill effects

from our current methods of grassland husbandry.
My hon. Friend and others have expressed some dislike of the ploughing grant arrangements. The general feeling in the debate has been that a reduction of the ploughing grant to £5 was a good thing. Certain hon. Members have gone further and wondered whether we would not have been wiser to discontinue the grant. Previous experience when that grant was discontinued showed a substantial going-out of cultivation. At one stage about 1 million acres had fallen away. Technical advice and experience indicate that a measure of ploughing grant is advantageous. Under these new Schemes it will be related to alternative forms of assistance and it is the considered view that the ploughing grant at the present level is still justified.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) were concerned with the relationship between these new schemes and M.A.P. There will be, of course, a variation. Certain farms under these new arrangements will be better off than they were under the M.A.P. arrangements. Some will not be so favourably placed. I do not want to give the impression in anything we say about the inter-relationship between the grants that one will break even. It is a changed situation which we think overall will be beneficial, and the money going into the hill areas will be slightly more than it was before. These assumptions are hound to be somewhat tentative at this stage.
Here I pick up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) who asked about the total sums involved, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. We think on present estimates that the livestock rearing farms get just over £500,000 from the ploughing grant and about £700,000 from M.A.P. Under the new Schemes they will get the major share of £1–3 million for winter keep and a big share of £60,000 for renovation. By and large, the effect will be that the hill areas will get, in total, slightly more money under these Schemes than they did under previous ones, and we think—and the N.F.U. agrees—that the distribution of the money under these Schemes will he more beneficial to agriculture in general.

Mr. Willis: I understand that the drop of something like 50 per cent. in the amount of the ploughing grants is likely to take place in the more prosperous lowland areas?

Mr. Brooman-White: Not necessarily. I think that the balance of advantage will be in the upland areas, particularly those in Scotland, which would qualify for the highest rates of the winter keep scheme. The balance of choice will more clearly lie in the direction of taking up the winter keep grants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige Gordon) asked about payments over a period of two successive years in respect of hay or silage. I think that is clear in the Scheme. It will certainly be made clear in the explanatory leaflets that one can qualify in successive years in respect of any of the eligible crops laid down in the schedule.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am very interested in this redistribution of money. As I understand the matter, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, his argument appears to indicate that the drop from £7 to £5 in respect of Part I ploughing grants will discourage prosperous farmers in the lowland areas, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), from ploughing up in order to claim the grant.

Mr. Brooman-White: What I said—I will put it the other way round, without wishing to argue the toss with the hon. Gentleman—is that in the more difficult farms of the hill areas, the balance of advantage will almost certainly lie in taking the winter keep grant.
I should like to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who asked me about the word predominantly". This also reflects on the point of who will or will not be eligible for these grants and the relationship with M.A.P. This was dealt with on the Report stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton), who

was a member of the Standing Committee, was concerned about this point and wanted us to look into the question of having a different definition of "eligible land". I think the House as a whole accepted that the description by my right hon. Friend of the general methods to be used in the administration of the Scheme was satisfactory and that it would not exclude people who sold a few churns of milk.
To quote my right hon. Friend:
Normally, we should approve any case in which the return from milk, fat stock and crops was not more than, say, 40 per cent. of the total. In certain circumstances, we might find that, on a particular farm, an even higher proportion was justified, but it must be principally a hill farm within the context we all know"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th February, 1963 Vol. 671, c. 271–2.]
I think the House accepted that reassurance, and I am glad to be able to repeat it this evening.
Another important question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West with regard to eligibility and the relationship between the various levels of grant to be available in Scotland. He asked previously whether there would be some form of appeal or arrangements to assist in sorting out disputes, and we said that we should consider that. It is of particular interest in Scotland, of course, because of our division into three categories. Since our debates on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we have discussed the matter with the chairmen of the agricultural executive committees, with the National Farmers' Union and with the Scottish Landowners' Federation.
We have decided to set up a national body drawn, in the main, from the membership of the A.E.C.s, probably with three members from each area. They will he appointed by the Secretary of State. This body will be given full information on the definitions and the criteria to be used by the Department in classifying farms, and it will be able to advise on general issues and individual cases. Where necessary, it will be able to help by forming inspecting panels from its membership to visit farms. We envisage such panels having, say, three members, one a local expert and the other two from different areas.


We hope thereby to meet the two necessary considerations which my hon. Friend mentioned in Committee, that these panels should both help to impose a general standard and also, through the local expert, advise on the particular circumstances of individual farms.
The role will be advisory. The final responsibility will rest with my right hon. Friend. It is hoped to appoint this body and make a fuller announcement in the near future. We believe that it will make a substantial contribution in dealing with questions of doubt in establishing these different categories of farms.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said in opening the debate, these Schemes have met with the general approval of the farming community and the Farmers' Union. I hope that they will be accepted by the House.

Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Grassland Renovation (England and Wales and Northern Ireland Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Grassland Renovation (Scotland) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Brooman-White

Winter Keep (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

ATCHAM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (OFFICE EXTENSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

11.53 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I regret having to detain the House and my hon. Friend at this time of night, and I am sad that, after many years in the House, I find it necessary to utter criticisms against one of the two local authorities which comprise the area of my constituency, many of the members of which are personal friends of mine. For many months now, I have tried to hold myself in a position between the two parties, and I have tried to effect, as far as it lay within my power, some form of reconciliation. I should have been prepared, had there been any sign or hope of reconciliation, to withhold the action I am taking tonight.
The first fact to be understood in this dispute between the Atcham Rural District Council and my constituent is that the offices of the Atcham Rural District Council lie within the area of the planning authority, the Shrewsbury Borough Council. The premises, 23, St. John's Hill, were bought by my constituent, a Dr. Macaulay, from the rural district council in 1952. In May, 1960, the Shrewsbury Borough Council, as planning authority, approved plans by the Atcham Rural District Council, whose offices were next door to No. 23 St. John's Hill, for extensions to its offices which resulted in a building going up alongside Dr. Macaulay's garden, with large windows overlooking his garden.
This proposal was approved in May, 1960, by Shrewsbury Borough Council, which is the local planning authority. Dr. Macaulay—and I have no reason to doubt him, because there is no evidence to the contrary—was never informed as to what sort of request the rural district council had made, or what it proposed to do. There is no written evidence that any information was ever given to him. I believe that it has been stated by the council that reference was made to the council's proposals, not to Dr. Macaulay, but to his wife and this was during a conversation in the garage at the end of


the doctor's garden. There was no written notification of what the council intended to do but, even if this conversation did take place, to make a statement not to the doctor but to his wife in their garage, seems to me a most strange way of conducting business.
Dr. Macaulay first saw the indications that windows would overlook his garden when he was shown a plan in July, 1960. That was on the occasion of a visit which he had paid to the rural district council offices on a different matter. He was then told that the rural district council, when it transferred the ownership of 23, St. John's Hill, next door, had reserved the right to light and air. This was said to be in the conveyance the council made to Dr. Macaulay. This statement was repeated to an officer of the council a week later and it appeared to the doctor that this officer went out of the office for some minutes and then came back to say that the council had reserved the right to light and air in the conveyance.
This, as I have said, was in July, 1960. In August, 1960, the doctor wrote to the Town Clerk of Shrewsbury indicating his objections to the proposal. In October, 1960, one month after work had actually started on the building, it was established that no right to light and air did, in point of fact, exist. The area with which I am concerned is shown on the town map as primarily a residential area and, at the inquiry later, there were many residents in and around this area who gave evidence on behalf of Dr. Macaulay. One cannot but help wonder if permission for this type of development would have been given to anyone other than a local authority. Would any business organisation have been given permission for similar development; would it be given now, or in the future? I most certainly hope not, because this is not only a beautiful area, but a beautiful residential area.
Unlike the rural district council, Dr. Macaulay warned his neighbours—that is, the council—that if they went on with their building, he would take steps to obscure their windows. After an appeal to the borough council, then to the Minister, and after a public inquiry, Dr. Macaulay won his rights in this matter. That was in December, 1961. He won the right to do it in only one way, and that was by building a wall alongside the

new office extension, which the Atcham Rural District Council had built in such a way that apart from its appearance and apart from obliterating the windows, it would do little more than collect twigs and earwigs.
I suggest again that the doctor having won his point—the windows were infringing his privacy—the correct, simple and most straightforward way is to block up those windows. The rural district council, however, takes the view that the doctor having won his point to build his wall, which was the only course open to him, this is what it will insist he shall do.
What did the rural district council say about the building of the wall when the doctor took the matter to appeal? I have a copy of the report of the inspector. Under the heading "The case for the Council"—and I presume that this was on the basis of evidence which the council laid before the inspector—n states:
The erection of large blank, slab wall, built against the windows of a new well-formed office extension, would not harmonise with the present building, and would spoil appearances.…;The effect of the proposed wall against the new office extension would be harmful to the appearance of the locality. The top of the wall would be seen from St. Chad's Terrace"—
which is a neighbouring street—
and would be detrimental to visual amenity. It would also affect the visual amenities of the gardens of neighbouring houses.
That is the action which the rural district council now requires Dr. Macaulay to take.
From this position the council has not budged, except to say that it is prepared to put in glazed bricks. This is quite inadequate. Anybody must know that through glazed bricks, people on either side close by are clearly visible, and privacy is bound to be affected. In addition, voices are audible in both directions through such windows. Thirdly, and not least important. if one is trying to make this ugly building less ugly, it ought to be possible to grow creepers and ramblers on it. but this would not be possible with the three large windows along the wall.
The rural district council has not behaved in this matter as I should hope it would as good neighbours. One has only to consider what I call the story of the dustbins. By arrangement with the


district council, it had been the custom for Dr. Macaulay to take his dustbins through the council's yard. The only way in which he could get his dustbins out of his premises was either through his house or through a yard which belonged to the district council offices. Two weeks after Dr. Macaulay's letter of protest to the borough council saying that he would object, the permission to take dustbins through the back yard was withdrawn by the rural district council.
One cannot help wondering why an authority with, presumably, adequate sanitary advice should consider it correct behaviour to compel a doctor of medicine to carry dustbins through his house, past his surgery and waiting room and out through his front door.
That leads me to the most extraordinary action of all. In January, 1961, the rural district council said that it would allow Dr. Macaulay to continue to take his dustbins through the council's yard if he would apologise to the council for all the trouble he had caused it and would pay the council's legal expenses. This is not the action of a good neighbour. Here is a local authority compelling a constituent of mine to do something which the local authority itself, when it had the opportunity, said was unsightly and undesirable.
I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend feels that the council behaved entirely properly in this matter and I express the hope that he will try to do what I have failed to do—to bring these parties together in the hope that ultimately reason will prevail and that benefit, in a small way, to the Borough of Shrewsbury will result.

12.5 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has raised one of those difficult problems which involve, basically, differences between neighbours, and this case is complicated and aggravated by the fact that one of the neighbours in question is a local authority, although not, be it said, a local planning authority.
It is never easy to be quite sure in these cases that one has all the facts, and this case is no exception, but certainly the physical features which my hon.

Friend described are not in dispute. There is no doubt that his constituent, who owns No. 23, St. John's Hill, has been faced with considerable intrusion upon his privacy. As my hon. Friend said, the Atcham Rural District Council's offices adjoin No. 23, and Dr. Macaulay's garden, a narrow strip about 70 feet long, is bounded for about half its length by the wall of the council chamber, which is a fairly old building, being the old Friends' Meeting House in Shrewsbury. That is the further end of the garden. The R.D.C., wishing to increase its office accommodation, has rebuilt an intervening building so that the whole of Dr. Macaulay's boundary is formed by this continuous building.
The trouble has arisen from three windows which have been inserted in the intervening building and which undoubtedly introduce an intrusion into his privacy of a greater degree than that which existed from the three fairly ancient windows in the old Meeting House. This is aggravated by the fact that, as I observe from the photographs, immediately opposite these windows, Dr. Macaulay's house has large Georgian bay windows on the ground, first and second floors, which are, of course, the windows of principal rooms.
I re-echo the regrets which my hon. Friend expressed about this matter. As he knows, I am a Salopian. I still own a little property in the Atcham rural district, more by sentiment than anything else, and my family connections go back a long way further than does the Atcham Rural District Council. I very much regret being put in this position tonight, because I have always had friendly relations with the council.
But, on the face of it, it does seem that Dr. Macaulay would be justified in regarding this building as un-neighbourly, whether the neighbour was a local authority or a private person. On the face of it, too, he may well appear to be justified in believing that he has a right to expect something rather better from a public authority. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is no doubt that this was the view which was, by implication, expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), who, as predecessor to the present Minister, granted permission for a wall to be built to minimise the damage


caused. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has somewhat put me in the position of judging between these two contestants. And so, of course, I must look equally at both sides, and it is only fair to say that there is another side to this question.
Naturally, I have had inquiries made, and indeed after my right hon. Friend brought Dr. Macaulay to see me I had certain approaches made, with regard to the question whether or not Dr. Macaulay knew of the intentions of the Atcham Rural District when he purchased the property. I find that there is clearly an element of genuine doubt. Unfortunately, the Clerk to the Atcham Rural District Council at the time has since died and there seems to be very little written evidence and remarkably little recollection. But, nevertheless, there was a contract of sale which clearly reserved to the rural district the right of light for any building which it might erect along the boundary.
I would re-emphasise that the doctor did buy his property from the rural district council, which sold it to him largely because the Shrewsbury Borough Council was unwilling to give planning permission to make No. 23, St. John's Hill into the additional office accommodation which the district council required. It had the intention of making up the accommodation it required in the premises next door or in the garden adjoining. It is fair to say, I think, that since this matter arose, the council has gone some way to attempting to ameliorate the nuisance. I am assured that all these offending windows are glazed with obscure glass and that instructions have been given that the windows on this side of the building shall not be opened.
In dealing with the merits of the matter, I think one has to be quite fair and say that there is a doubt as to what happened during the transactions leading up to the sale. It may well be that the council intended to make its position clear and failed to do so. What is quite certain is that there was a good deal of misunderstanding, and I am afraid it is equally certain that the office extension is up. The only question is whether anything can be done to resolve the present dispute. My hon. Friend

knows that there are powers under the planning Act by which my right hon. Friend can intervene in a pretty drastic manner, involving the removal of an offending building, but I do not think that my hon. Friend would suggest that this is an appropriate case for those powers, to be used. They are, as he knows, used only in matters of national rather than local interest or in matters where the planning authority or the local authority has clearly exceeded its powers in one way or another. This is clearly a local matter and there is no suggestion that the strict powers were exceeded in any way at all. Therefore, I do not think that anybody would suggest that these powers are appropriate in this case.
I have, as my hon. Friend knows, been in touch with the Atcham Rural District Council and the Shrewsbury Borough Council, and, as I say, they have given this assurance with regard to the opening of the windows and the glazing of them with obscure glass. They have also indicated that they would not be unwilling to consider a suitable clause to ensure that this continues should they give up these premises and move to new premises, which, I understand, they have purchased or are about to purchase in other parts of the town.
However, I do not hold out any hope to my hon. Friend that my efforts at mediation at this stage will be any more successful than his. In fact, I think there is a stage, as far as my Ministry is concerned, at which one must realise that one can persuade up to a point, and thereafter one has to decide whether local authorities are authorities or whether one is going to try to make them agents. Clearly, they are authorities with a great deal of autonomy, and I think the time has come to recognise that this is a matter within the discretion of the authorities concerned and that it is up to them to decide what to do, if anything.
I hope very much that this rather sad little affair, very annoying no doubt to Dr. Macaulay, but I think clouded with a good deal of genuine misunderstanding, not entirely as deliberate as perhaps at first appears, will be cleared up and that the parties will get together, if necessary through the good offices of some local personality commanding respect, of which I know there are plenty in my native


County of Salop—perhaps the Clerk to the County Council, or even the Clerk to the Borough Council.
I am sure that there are many people who would be only too willing to attempt to bring the parties together and reach a rather more sensible solution than the building of a wall slap up against windows when the same result could be achieved more cheaply, in a more sightly

manner, and in a manner much more likely to lead back to the amicable relations which we certainly hope to see preserved here, and particularly preserved with a local authority which, from my point of view, has always had a very high reputation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.